U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND …May 24, 2013 · Damon Bonneau, ACCSH Coordinator, Office of Construction Services, Directorate of Construction COMMITTEE COUNSEL:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH (ACCSH)

Friday, May 24, 2013 Frances Perkins Building 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES:

Erich J. (Pete) Stafford, Chairman Director of Safety and Health, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO Roger Erickson International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers AFL-CIO, MOST Administrator EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVES: Kristi Barber (telephonic) President, Glenn C. Barber & Associates Kevin R. Cannon Director of Safety and Health Services, Associated General Contractors of America Thomas Marrero, Jr. National Safety Director, Tradesman International

Donald L. Pratt President and CEO, Construction Education and Consultation Services of Michigan Jerry Rivera National Director of Safety, National Electrical Contractors Association STATE REPRESENTATIVES: Charles Stribling OSH Federal-State Coordinator, Kentucky Labor Cabinet, Department of Workplace Standards Steven D. Hawkins (telephonic) Administrator, Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration

3

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: [Continued] PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES:

Letitia K. Davis (telephonic) Director, Occupational Health Surveillance Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health Jeremy Bethancourt (telephonic) Co-Owner and Program Director, Arizona Construction Training Alliance FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES: Matt Gillen Deputy Director, Office of Construction Safety & Health, CDC/NIOSH, Office of the Director DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS: Dean McKenzie (Alternative) Office of Construction Services, Directorate of Construction

COMMITTEE CONTACTS: Damon Bonneau, ACCSH Coordinator, Office of Construction Services, Directorate of Construction COMMITTEE COUNSEL: Sarah Shortall ACCSH Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, DOL

4

OSHA: Louise Betz Paul Bolon

Garvin Branch Teresa Butler Tiffany DeFoe Lolita Oliver Hank Payne Vernon Preston Maureen Ruskin Blake Skogland David Valiante ALSO PRESENT: Graham Brent, National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators Lance Burney, Sigalarm Chris Cole, Inside OSHA Tim Couples, Federal Highway Administration

Rich Gottwald, International Sign Association Dan Glucksman, International Safety Equipment Association LaTonya James-Rouse, Esq., American Staffing Association George Kennedy, NUCA Lisa London, University of Texas, Arlington Kate Lynn, OSHA, Office of State Plans John Masarick, Independent Electric Contractors

5

ALSO PRESENT: [continued] Mike McCauley, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning

Contractors Association Lana Nieves, Office of Health Enforcement Beth O'Quinn, Specialized Carriers and Rigging Assoc. Travis Parsons, Laborers Health and Safety Fund of N.A. Andrea Paulyette, Army Corps of Engineers Richard Rye, Army Corps of Engineers Jim Tigon, Aginomics Stephen Todd, Specialized Carriers and Rigging Assoc. Jim Tomaseski, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Francisco Trujillo, Miller & Long Concrete Bruce Watson, Occupational Safety and Health Reporter

Rod Weber, PENTA Building Group Chris Williams, Associated Builders and Contractors Lauren Williams, Associated Builders and Contractors

6

A G E N D A PAGE

Opening Remarks/Agenda Overview - Chairman Stafford 7 Discussion of the two hour introduction to the OSHA 10 hour and 30 hour training courses 40 Occupational Exposure to Beryllium - David Valiante, Directorate of Standards and Guidance 64 SIP IV - Alternatives to the decompression labels in Subpart S - Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and Compressed Air - Paul Bolon and Vernon Preston, Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance 74 SIP IV - Update the incorporation by reference of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to the 2009 edition - Paul Bolon and Blake Skogland, Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance 82 Discussion of the draft Federal Agency Procurement Construction, Health and Safety Checklist 105

Public Comments 118 LaTonya James-Rouse, American Staffing Assoc. Lisa London, University of Texas, Arlington Francisco Trujillo, Miller & Long Concrete MOTIONS - Pages 13, 29 (revised), 31, 38, 92

7

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

(10:02 a.m.) 2

OPENING REMARKS/AGENDA OVERVIEW 3

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I believe that we have a 4

quorum so we will go ahead and call the meeting to 5

order. 6

My name is Pete Stafford. I'm a labor 7

representative and Chair of ACCSH. Welcome to this 8

morning's meeting. 9

Right out of the gate, I was reminded 10

yesterday we had over 100 people in the room. We had a 11

big turn out for our discussions. At the end of the 12

day, we had only about 15 folks sign up. We are going 13

to be sure we have the sign-in sheet go by. It's 14

important, of course, as a public meeting, those folks 15

are here and sign the sign-in sheet. We appreciate 16

that. 17

Also, at the end of this meeting, like most of 18

our meetings, we will have an opportunity for public 19

comment. If anyone wants to make comments to the 20

Committee, we will carve out some time at the end, 21

depending on how our agenda goes to do so. There is 22

8

also a sign-in sheet in the back if you would like to 1

make public comment. I appreciate it. 2

Let's get started by introductions. Starting 3

on my right? 4

MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, designated 5

Federal official for today. 6

MR. STRIBLING: Good morning. Chuck Stribling 7

for Kentucky Labor Cabinet representing state plan 8

programs. 9

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, The Associated 10

General Contractors, employer rep. 11

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen, NIOSH, Office of 12

Construction Safety and Health, NIOSH rep. 13

MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, NECA. 14

MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero with Tradesmen 15

International, employer rep. 16

MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson, MOST Programs, 17

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, employee 18

rep. 19

MR. PRATT: Don Pratt, employer rep. 20

MS. SHORTALL: Sarah Shortall, ACCSH counsel. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Let's go to the back. Why 22

9

don't we start with you, Paul, and work our way around 1

the room. 2

MR. BOLON: Paul Bolon, I'm in the Standards 3

Office in the Directorate of Construction, OSHA. 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Why don't we stop right 5

there for one sec. I forgot the people on the phone. 6

Will the ACCSH members on the phone introduce 7

yourselves, please? 8

MR. HAWKINS: Mr. Chairman, this is Steve 9

Hawkins with Tennessee OSHA, public safety agency 10

representative. 11

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, Jeremy 12

Bethancourt, public representative. 13

MS. BARBER: Good morning. This is Kristi 14

Barber, employer representative. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Tish, are you there? Tish 16

must not be on yet. Let's go back around. 17

MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Inside OSHA. 18

MR. PARSONS: Travis Parsons with Laborers 19

Health and Safety Fund of North America. 20

MR. BONNEAU: Damon Bonneau, ACCSH 21

Coordinator, Office of Construction Services, 22

10

Directorate of Construction. 1

MR. COUPLES: Tim Couples, Federal Highway 2

Administration. 3

MR. BRENT: Graham Brent, National Commission 4

for Certification of Crane Operators. 5

MR. GOTTWALD: Rich Gottwald, International 6

Sign Association. 7

MS. O'QUINN: Beth O'Quinn, Specialized 8

Carriers and Rigging Association. 9

MR. TODD: Stephen Todd, also Specialized 10

Carriers and Rigging Association. 11

MR. WEBER: Rod Weber, PENTA Building Group, 12

Las Vegas, Nevada. 13

MR. TIGON: Jim Tigon, Aginomics. 14

MR. GLUCKSMAN: Dan Glucksman, International 15

Safety Equipment Association. 16

MS. LYNN: Kate Lynn, OSHA. 17

MS. NIEVES: Lana Nieves, OSHA. 18

MS. LONDON: Lisa London with University of 19

Texas at Arlington and the OSHA Training Institute 20

Education Centers. 21

MR. BRANCH: Garvin Branch, Directorate of 22

11

Construction. 1

MS. BUTLER: Teresa Butler, OSHA. 2

MR. BURNEY: Lance Burney, Sigalarm. 3

MR. WILLIAMS: Chris Williams, Associated 4

Builders and Contractors. 5

MR. MASARICK: John Masarick, Independent 6

Electrical Contractors. 7

MR. McCAULEY: Mike McCauley, Sheet Metal and 8

Air Conditioning Contractors Association. 9

MR. KENNEDY: George Kennedy, NUCA. 10

MS. WILLIAMS: Lauren Williams, Associated 11

Builders and Contractors. 12

MS. PAULYETTE: Andrea Paulyette, U.S. Army 13

Corps of Engineers. 14

MR. RYE: Richard Rye, U.S. Army Corps of 15

Engineers. 16

MR. WATSON: Bruce Watson, Bloomberg, 17

Occupational Safety and Health Reporter. 18

MS. OLIVER: Lolita Oliver, OSHA. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: That is Damon carrying the 20

microphone around. 21

MS. DAVIS: Tish Davis, I'm a public 22

12

representative and I work with the Massachusetts 1

Department of Public Health. 2

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. Dean, any 3

announcements? 4

MR. McKENZIE: Nothing right off. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Ms. Sarah? 6

MS. SHORTALL: No. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: The first thing on the 8

agenda this morning is to start talking about the OSHA 9

outreach training program. Before we do that, we have 10

a couple of items of business that the Committee needs 11

to take action on based on our discussion yesterday, 12

and for many of us, it was a very interesting 13

discussion that we had, and I was struck by the 14

comments about OSHA's plan to push the crane and 15

derrick training certification back for three years. 16

I think we have talked amongst some of our 17

Committee members and with the folks with OSHA. We 18

heard those comments. For the Committee, I would like 19

to offer up a motion to be considered, and we can have 20

a discussion about that and hopefully move this 21

forward. 22

13

Actually, there are going to be two 1

recommendations with respect to the crane standard, one 2

on the training certification issue and the other on 3

the crane amendments that we discussed. 4

With that said, I am going to go ahead and 5

read this motion and we will throw it up for discussion 6

and debate and we will vote on it. 7

M O T I O N 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I move ACCSH recommend to 9

OSHA that the crane operator certification requirement 10

due to take effect December 10, 2014, be suspended 11

until such time as OSHA reopens the rule to clarify 12

third party certification and employer training and 13

qualification requirements while keeping employer 14

duties to ensure operator qualifications. 15

I think what that does is we hope that OSHA 16

will move on the rulemaking process, open this up 17

quickly, and get it done, and there is no point if they 18

do that to arbitrarily say that we are going to put 19

this off for another three years. I hope this motion 20

will change OSHA's thinking in terms of the three year 21

requirement, and hopefully, we can start moving on 22

14

this. 1

I would like to open it up for discussion. 2

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, do you need a 3

second on that? 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I do. 5

MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy. I will 6

second that motion. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Don? 8

MR. PRATT: I was going to second the motion. 9

Also, I just want to comment that our members really 10

need a decision on this quickly. The guys out in the 11

field really don't know what they are doing at this 12

point, and whether it is going to be training or 13

certification or both. We really need some guidance. 14

We are going to urge OSHA to act quickly on this. 15

Thank you. 16

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. 17

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, this is Jeremy. 18

I agree with Don. To be clear, I think folks know 19

what they are doing, they just don't know what 20

direction they need to go in as far as making sure they 21

are not only compliant with best practices but we have 22

15

a statutory obligation, so I think folks in my area and 1

the folks that have crane companies that I interact 2

with and speak to, they are concerned because they want 3

to ensure that they are not only providing best 4

practices, but they are also doing what they need to 5

under their legal obligations. 6

I agree with Don and everyone that this is 7

something that really should not be put off if at all 8

possible, and they should work on it immediately. 9

That's what I have to say. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. I appreciate that, 11

Jeremy. I think we all feel the same. Roger? 12

MR. ERICKSON: Yes, I just want to 13

speak -- Roger Erickson, employee representative. I 14

wanted to speak in favor of the motion. I know it was 15

brought up yesterday regarding a lot of trust funds 16

that are training their people through joint 17

labor/management funding and everything. 18

We need to make a commitment to those funds 19

and get some type of determination as soon as possible. 20

Thank you. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, Roger. Jerry? 22

16

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, I vote in support 1

of the motion to extend it, I do want to make sure the 2

Agency considers in the rulemaking process, if there is 3

any significant financial impact, whether we include or 4

address the type and capacity issue, that be considered 5

as far as a SBREFA Panel. 6

I know that's beyond the scope. Like I said, 7

I support the motion to extend it, but let's keep that 8

in mind, besides expediting the process of the 9

rulemaking, we need to consider the impact it will have 10

on small businesses as well. 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, Jerry. Kevin? 12

MR. CANNON: I was just going to pretty much 13

echo what everyone else said, although not ideal. I 14

think it eliminates the concern of most, that they have 15

invested in training and certification only to find out 16

that upon whatever effective date, they would be 17

non-compliant. 18

Also, as Jerry said, if there is any change 19

that impacts on small employers, that should be 20

considered. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. 22

17

MS. SHORTALL: I hate to bring up a point of 1

clarification here, but the motion technically says you 2

only want to have the time for meeting the training 3

requirements suspended until OSHA opens the record. I 4

don't think that is what you intend. I think you 5

intend that you want it suspended until after OSHA 6

completes that rulemaking. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: The motion is to open the 8

rule to clarify, which I guess was the intent, that it 9

completes the rulemaking, but if you want to -- 10

MS. SHORTALL: I think you would add "complete 11

the rulemaking" somewhere in there. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Gee, Sarah, now I have to 13

rewrite this for a second. Hold on. 14

[Pause.] 15

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, could you read that 16

motion one more time? 17

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: The one I initially 18

proposed? 19

MR. RIVERA: Yes. 20

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I move that ACCSH 21

recommend to OSHA that the crane operator certification 22

18

requirement due to take effect November 10, 2014 be 1

suspended until such time as OSHA reopens the rule to 2

clarify third party certification and employer training 3

and qualification requirements, while keeping employer 4

duties to ensure operator qualifications. That is the 5

initial motion. 6

MR. McKENZIE: Why don't you say "reopens and 7

amends?" 8

MS. SHORTALL: I think you could say "until 9

such time that OSHA completes its rulemaking on 10

operator certification, including opening the record to 11

clarify," and then finish with the rest that you have. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All right. I'm not the 13

sharpest tool in the shed. 14

MS. SHORTALL: Pete Stafford moves that ACCSH 15


requirement due to take effect 11/10/14 be suspended to 17

such time that OSHA completes its rulemaking on 18

operator certification, including opening the record to 19

clarify third party certification and employer training 20

and qualification requirements, while keeping employer 21

duties to ensure operator qualifications. 22

19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sounds like a lawyer to 1

me. I think that captures it. 2

MS. DAVIS: Pete, this is Tish. Do you want 3

to have something in the motion about timeliness? 4

That's what I'm hearing from the discussion, we are 5

urging them to proceed quickly. Should that be in the 6

motion itself or is it fine just to be in the record? 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I don't know what to say 8

with respect to timing. We want them to do it quickly. 9

I don't know how we could say a particular time. I'm 10

looking at the OSHA folks. 11

MS. DAVIS: I'm not saying a particular time, 12

just the notion that they proceed in a timely fashion. 13

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, I think what is 14

missing is maybe we should add that in the interim, the 15

employer will follow the phase in criteria that was 16

highlighted initially. That gives some direction as 17

far as to what the employer should do in the meantime, 18

which is to train, qualify independently. 19

MR. McKENZIE: You're talking about the 20

existing 1427(k) requirements? 21

MR. RIVERA: Yes. 22

20

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. 1

I'm having trouble hearing some of the folks. 2

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. We'll make sure to 3

be closer to the microphone, Jeremy. That was my 4

intent, "while keeping employer duties to ensure 5

operator qualifications." I think we are all saying 6

the same thing, let's just get the language straight 7

and move on. 8

MS. SHORTALL: I think it would be enough to 9

say "while keeping in place current employer duties." 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Is that satisfactory as 11

far as timing? 12

MR. RIVERA: To a certain degree, it might not 13

be a given. I just mention that aspect. Employer 14

groups, when they read that language, it's kind of 15

confusing. That is just my thought on it. 16

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Chuck? 17

MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling. We already 18

have a motion and a second. I'm presuming that needs 19

to be undone and this amended motion entered in the 20

record. 21

MS. SHORTALL: If both the person making the 22

21

motion and the person who seconded it accepts it as a 1

friendly amendment, there is no need to withdraw and 2

re-propose or remove. 3

MR. STRIBLING: From a regulatory standpoint, 4

you have 27 states out there and territories that 5

already have a rule on the books. I'm kind of confused 6

what this recommendation is essentially saying to the 7

Agency, how they will proceed. This could take -- I 8

don't see it getting done any quicker than five years. 9

You have to go through rulemaking and SBREFA, and I 10

think that's optimistic. 11

Now we have 27 states and territories with the 12

regulation on the books. You have some municipalities 13

with the regulation on the books. I'm not saying they 14

will or won't go with any type of amendment that comes 15

out the door, and I don't know there is a good answer 16

to this. 17

I just don't know. If this is the best 18

solution for now, it's the best solution, and each 19

state is going to have to review what it is going to 20

do. It doesn't necessarily -- I don't see this being a 21

mandatory thing for the states because so many 22

22

employers have gone forward and got certification, and 1

to go back now and tell those employers oops, never 2

mind for now, we're going to extend this out sort of 3

indefinitely, because we don't know when it would 4

be -- it's going to put at least my state in a little 5

bit of a peculiar situation. 6

Steve, if you're on the line? 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Steve, do you have any 8

comment about that? Chuck's comments? 9

MR. HAWKINS: It is going to be a concern for 10

the other 27 states. They will all have to take some 11

kind of legislative action to suspend that. Every six 12

months, we adopt the Federal standard as written. As 13

long as a rule comes out, as long as the standard comes 14

out, we will adopt that, most likely we will adopt that 15

automatically. 16

There are 26 other entities that potentially 17

may stay with the November 2014 date. That's just one 18

of the issues to deal with. I think likely we would 19

adopt the change. 20

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I appreciate that. Paul, 21

can you speak at all with respect to timing and what 22

23

OSHA is thinking about? 1

MR. BOLON: We are thinking about issuing a 2

proposal as soon as we can. I don't think it is a five 3

year thing. If we happen to follow the path that ACCSH 4

is recommending, the analysis will be pretty 5

straightforward and simple. There is obviously no new 6

burden. 7

I can't predict the timing of the whole 8

clearance process, but just in terms of writing it, we 9

have already drafted something and not exactly this. I 10

don't see this five years. It can't take five years 11

because we are going to start the other rulemaking on 12

qualification. We have already started that, the 13

development of that also. 14

MS. SHORTALL: Can I ask a question of Mr. 15

Bolon? Has there been a determination whether this 16

additional rulemaking would require an additional 17

SBREFA process? I hear you saying there is no new 18

additional burden. 19

Are you saying that means there is no 20

additional significant financial impact on small 21

businesses? 22

24

MR. BOLON: When we were considering what we 1

presented to ACCSH before, just moving the date by 2

three years, there was a little bit of economic work to 3

do. There was not going to be much impact, but it was 4

not cleanly no cost. 5

This one is much cleaner and the analysis 6

would really be pretty simple and straightforward. 7

MS. SHORTALL: Does that indicate there most 8

likely would not be a SBREFA panel? 9

MR. BOLON: Just off the top of my head, the 10

impacts are cost savings. It's certainly not a new 11

cost. I'm a little uncertain about SBREFA. Usually, 12

you are bringing in employers to introduce the concepts 13

if they are going to be costly. I would think not, but 14

don't hold me to it. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Chuck, please. 16

MR. STRIBLING: If I understand you right, you 17

believe the Agency would have a proposal out the door 18

quickly? 19

MR. BOLON: We will have it out of our 20

Directorate. It goes to the Assistant Secretary, it 21

goes to the Department, theoretically, goes to OMB. We 22

25

can only do our part and get the package ready and then 1

it goes to the clearance process, which can be short or 2

lengthy, and that is beyond my control. 3

MR. STRIBLING: When you say "proposal," do 4

you mean proposed rule or final rule or direct final 5

rule? 6

MR. BOLON: I mean proposed. Direct final 7

rules, as Sarah can tell us, work when they are fairly 8

non-controversial. I don't think this is. If you give 9

us an adverse comment, then you have to withdraw it and 10

do a proposal. We're thinking proposal. 11

MR. STRIBLING: I think it will be a matter of 12

time because after a proposed rule, there will be 13

comment, and then there will be a final rule. Although 14

OSHA's proposal was to extend it for three years, I 15

think this will be at least the same time frame if not 16

longer. It might lead to a better resolution instead 17

of just an extension. This may sort of get that going 18

a little bit quicker. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: This seems to me in some 20

ways it's dealing with the problem as opposed to 21

putting it off for another three years. 22

26

I have forgot what the original motion was 1

now. I will have to go back and look. Is there any 2

more discussion? 3

[No response.] 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sarah, would you read the 5

motion one more time? 6

MS. SHORTALL: Sure. Mr. Stafford moves that 7

ACCSH recommend to OSHA that the crane operator 8

certification requirement due to take effect on 9

11/10/14 be suspended to such time that OSHA completes 10

its rulemaking on operator certification, including 11

opening the record, clarifying third party 12

certification and employer training qualification, 13

while keeping in place current employer duties to 14

ensure operator qualifications. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Everyone is comfortable 16

with the intent of that or no? 17

MR. RIVERA: Phasing criteria maybe towards 18

the end of that? Again, I just want to pinpoint 19

somewhere, okay, what does that mean, oh, I know what 20

it means now. I understand the point, it's implied, 21

but -- 22

27

MS. SHORTALL: I'm not certain I understand 1

what you are saying, Mr. Rivera. 2

MR. McKENZIE: Our proposed rule to make 3

whatever modification, be it an extension for a finite 4

amount of time or suspension of the effective date, 5

will include the employer requirement to maintain the 6

operator's qualification with 1427(k), and part of the 7

removal of the effective date of 2014 for operator 8

certification will be an extension of the phase-in 9

date. That will be covered in the proposed rule, 10

whatever version exactly we choose to go out with. 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Jerry, if we add the 12

sentence of what you proposed earlier, in the interim, 13

employers are still required to continue to ensure that 14

operators can safely operate equipment following the 15

existing phase-in criteria. 16

MR. RIVERA: Does the phase-in criteria 17

capture what you just mentioned? 18

MR. McKENZIE: Yes. 19

MR. RIVERA: Yes, they must follow the 20

phase-in criteria. It points them back to some 21

direction of what they need to do. 22

28

MR. McKENZIE: The existing phase-in 1

requirement. 2

MR. CANNON: Pretty much what you said without 3

specifying specifically paragraph (k). 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Mercy. Sarah, I want you 5

to read it again and I think we will just add this 6

sentence here. 7

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Stafford moves that ACCSH 8


requirements due to take effect on 11/10/14 be 10

suspended to such time that OSHA completes its 11

rulemaking on operator certification, including opening 12

the record, clarifying third party certification, 13

employer training and qualification, while keeping in 14

place current employer duties to ensure operator 15

qualifications. 16

In the interim, employers are required to 17

ensure that operators continue to ensure that operators 18

can safely operate equipment following the existing 19

phase-in criteria. 20

I'm reading verbatim. 21

In the interim, employers are still required 22

29

to follow the existing phase-in criteria. 1

MR. RIVERA: There you go. 2

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thanks. Matt? 3

MR. GILLEN: Whatever decision OSHA makes with 4

ACCSH input, they will announce it somehow, and the 5

announcement can also have additional information about 6

the phase-in; right? 7

They are less likely to see this motion, but 8

the point is when OSHA communicates this, they include 9

that information. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sarah, just for 11

clarification, because it is obviously very important, 12

I'd like for you to read that one more time, and 13

hopefully we are to the point where we can take a vote. 14

MS. SHORTALL: I have to make one 15

clarification. The final sentence sounds like right 16

now you are dictating to OSHA what they have to do. I 17

need to put it into the motion. 18

M O T I O N [revised] 19

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Stafford moves that ACCSH 20


requirements due to take effect on 11/10/14 be 22

30

suspended to such time that OSHA completes its 1

rulemaking on operator certification, including opening 2

the record, and clarifying third party certification, 3

employer training and qualification, while keeping in 4

place current employer duties to ensure operator 5

qualifications. 6

I further move that ACCSH recommend OSHA 7

require employers to follow the existing phase-in 8

criteria in the interim. 9

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Any more discussion? 10

[No response.] 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: The motion has been made 12

and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. 13

[Chorus of ayes.] 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Opposed? 15

MR. BETHANCOURT: This is Jeremy, aye. 16

MS. DAVIS: Tish, aye. 17

MS. BARBER: Kristi, aye. 18

MR. HAWKINS: Steve Hawkins, aye. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Any opposed? 20

[No response.] 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Thank you, Sarah. 22

31

The second motion I would like to consider is on the 1

crane issue, but this is on the amendments. I think we 2

heard a pretty compelling -- I'm not going to say 3

argument but a pretty compelling situation from Mr. 4

Burney and Mr. Sapper with respect to proximity alarms 5

and insulating links. 6

I think I am going to offer up a motion again 7

for discussion based on that. I think the Committee 8

has heard it. I, certainly, as Chair have heard it, 9

and I know in talking to some of the OSHA staff, they 10

heard those remarks. I think those will certainly be 11

considered. 12

M O T I O N 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I move that the Agency 14

proceed with the amendment to the crane standard on 15

NRTL approved equipment, but consider the remarks in 16

this meeting with respect to proximity alarms and 17

insulating links. 18

MS. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, could you please 19

repeat that one more time? 20

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sure, Kristi. I move that 21

the Agency proceed with the amendment to the crane 22

32

standard on NRTL approved equipment, but consider the 1

remarks at this meeting with respect to proximity 2

alarms and insulating links. 3

It could be stronger, of course, but I think 4

the point is we heard what was happening and the 5

proximity equipment/devices that Mr. Burney described. 6

I don't think the intent is not to see those as an 7

option. They are out there and they apparently work 8

and that would be counter to what our goals are here. 9

I would welcome if anyone wants to wordsmith, 10

to make it stronger. I just wanted to get this on the 11

record that we heard this, and the Agency has heard 12

this, and it's going to be considered. 13

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon. Agency employer 14

rep. 15

MR. PRATT: This is Don Pratt. I second the 16

motion. 17

MR. CANNON: Sorry. 18

MR. PRATT: You're out of order. 19

MR. CANNON: Yes, I am. 20

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Go ahead, Kevin. 21

MR. CANNON: Instead of just saying 22

33

"consider," the position statements that were made 1

yesterday, can we insert "consider alternatives to NRTL 2

based on the comments made yesterday?" 3

MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, NECA, employer rep. 4

The way it is worded right now, it doesn't allow any 5

direction. I think that captures it, "alternatives." 6

MR. CANNON: To the NRTL requirements based 7

on. 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Chuck? 9

MR. STRIBLING: I was kind of hoping it 10

wouldn't get a second so we could work it out a little 11

bit before it did. I agree with the intent and I agree 12

with what's being said. I don't like the word 13

"consider." I think a stronger word would be better. 14

I don't know what that word is. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Just like the one before, 16

I think this is important and let's come together on 17

what we think the right language should be. Sarah has 18

my cheat sheet so I can't look at it. Do one of you 19

want to take a crack at coming up with something? 20

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Stribling, you could ask 21

that OSHA incorporate into their rulemaking record the 22

34

proceedings from this meeting, which would get all of 1

the discussion in the transcript. I don't know if that 2

is where you are going. 3

The most important thing that you are doing is 4

giving ACCSH's recommendation and not other people's 5

recommendations. Are you trying to pick a side or pick 6

a position from those comments? 7

MR. STRIBLING: No, not particularly. I would 8

just like to see that the technologies that are out 9

there that we heard about are addressed in the rule and 10

those options are there for employers and for employee 11

protection. 12

MR. CANNON: Maybe instead of "consider," 13

"allow?" 14

SPEAKER: "Acknowledge?" 15

MS. SHORTALL: I think what Mr. Stribling 16

wants to do is make sure the discussion of the 17

different technologies that are available make it into 18

that rulemaking record. Is that what you are trying to 19

say? 20

If you were to say simply that you request 21

OSHA incorporate into that rulemaking the record from 22

35

this meeting, everything that was said, all the 1

material that has come in about those issues, including 2

the additional material the commentors submitted for 3

the record, would be part of that record, so there 4

would be some assurance OSHA consider that as well as 5

its own record in reaching a determination. 6

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman, what if we just said 7

we encourage OSHA to consider and then what Sarah just 8

said, so that everything that was discussed yesterday 9

would be incorporated in their consideration? 10

MS. SHORTALL: If you incorporate this record 11

into that, it is a duty for OSHA in that rulemaking to 12

consider it. They must base their final determination 13

on the entirety of the rulemaking record, and that 14

rulemaking record would then include the proceedings 15

from this meeting. 16

MR. PRATT: That's what I was trying to 17

accomplish. 18

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Go ahead, Chuck. 19

MR. STRIBLING: Mr. Chair, would you be 20

acceptable to changing the word "consider" to 21

"incorporate?" 22

36

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Incorporating the remarks 1

from this meeting? 2

MS. SHORTALL: I would say incorporate into 3

that rulemaking docket the record from this meeting. 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Does that sound fine to 5

everyone? We will have you read it one more time, 6

Sarah. I think that will hit it. 7


recommend that OSHA proceed with the amendment to the 9

crane standard on NRTL approved equipment and 10

incorporate into that rulemaking docket the record from 11

this meeting. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Any other discussion? 13

[No response.] 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sarah, since that has 15

changed, we have had a motion and a second -- 16

MS. SHORTALL: If you accepted, we can move 17

forward. 18

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. That's fine. 19

MS. SHORTALL: Do you want me to read it one 20

more time? 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Yes. 22

37


recommend that OSHA proceed with the amendment to the 2

crane standard on NRTL approved equipment and 3

incorporate into the rulemaking docket the record from 4

this meeting. 5

MS. DAVIS: You want the entire record from 6

the meeting or the relevant parts of the record of the 7

meeting? 8

MS. SHORTALL: It's not going to make any 9

difference. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. We have a motion 11

and a second. Any more discussion? 12

[No response.] 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All those in favor, 14

signify by saying aye. 15


CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Those of you on the phone? 17


MS. DAVIS: Tish, aye. 19

MS. BARBER: Kristi, aye. 20



38

[No response.] 1

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. I'd like to offer 2

one more motion and this is finally off the crane issue 3

and moving to the SIP issue. We had the presentation 4

yesterday on one of OSHA's proposals on chest x-rays. 5

It was to be included in SIP IV. 6

While I understand the intent of it, it seems 7

to me there is a disconnect. I obviously don't want to 8

be hard on the Agency. We are here to support the 9

Agency. 10

The OSHA Act created both OSHA and NIOSH at 11

the same time, and for NIOSH to do the science to 12

inform regulation. The fact that OSHA is talking about 13

an issue like this and not talking to its sister agency 14

at NIOSH is a little bit bothersome, at least to me. 15

That was the intent of Congress when we created these 16

two organizations. 17

I think with that said, I'm offering the 18

following motion on that particular issue on the SIP 19

IV. 20

M O T I O N 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I move that OSHA consults 22

39

with NIOSH before ACCSH consider recommending to OSHA 1

that it remove requirements for chest x-rays in certain 2

health standards affecting construction workers and 3

permit digital storage of x-rays as part of SIP IV. 4

MR. STRIBLING: Second. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Any discussion? 6

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, this is 7

Jeremy. If I understand the motion correctly, what you 8

are asking is that before ACCSH actually gives a 9

recommendation to OSHA on this matter, that OSHA 10

consult with NIOSH and bring us back their -- 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Yes. Any more discussion? 12

[No response.] 13

MS. SHORTALL: I apologize. I neglected to 14

say something at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. 15

Stafford, yesterday, we put a proxy into the record for 16

Mr. Walter Jones. Today, Ms. Shadrick and Ms. Coyne 17

have also given Mr. Stafford their proxies. However he 18

votes, their votes will be recorded accordingly. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. No more 20

discussion? 21

[No response.] 22

40



[Chorus of ayes.] 3

MS. DAVIS: This is Tish, aye. 4


MS. BARBER: This is Kristi, aye. 6

MR. HAWKINS: This is Steve Hawkins, aye. 7


[No response.] 9

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Thank you. Now we 10

can move on with our agenda for this morning. I am 11

going to rely heavily on my training work group 12

co-leads to talk about the next issue. 13

Before we get into that, any other business 14

that we need to clear up? Is everybody comfortable 15

with moving forward? 16

DISCUSSION OF THE TWO HOUR INTRODUCTION TO THE OSHA 17

10 HOUR AND 30 HOUR TRAINING COURSES 18

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Our training work group 19

has been working on that at the last meeting this 20

Committee made a recommendation to OSHA that OSHA do 21

away with the two hour time requirement for the intro 22

41

to OSHA for both the OSHA 10 and the OSHA 30. 1

I think for many of the stakeholders in the 2

industry, we view a time requirement on an introduction 3

to OSHA is in some ways not necessary, and a lot of us 4

feel instead of having to spend two hours on an intro 5

to OSHA, and as long as we recognize that is an 6

important training module for both the OSHA 10 and 30 7

and we keep the objectives so we cover all the 8

objectives of the intro to OSHA, if we can do that in 9

less than two hours, then our trainers can move on and 10

start training to the hazards they want to teach to 11

their workers. 12

That was the start of this conversation. I 13

believe there is a handout in the back and in your 14

packet for the ACCSH members, an one page that the 15

training work group put together. I would like to 16

refer to that document for the purposes of our 17

discussion. 18

I think Dr. Payne was at our last meeting, and 19

I think he heard us. I have since talked to DOC staff, 20

folks in Dr. Michaels' office as well. I think there 21

is overall reception and support of what we are trying 22

42

to do, again, as long as we keep the objectives in 1

place. 2

With that, Kevin or Roger, however you would 3

like to proceed with this discussion, I will turn it 4

over to you to kind of walk us through these objectives 5

and see if we can kind of move this forward. 6

MR. CANNON: As Pete mentioned or referenced 7

the document that was included in our packet, it 8

basically lays out a problem statement. I think Pete 9

covered the problem statement pretty well. 10

MS. DAVIS: Excuse me, I can't hear. Can you 11

speak into the microphone, please? 12

MR. CANNON: Sorry; yes. The document Pete 13

referenced has kind of laid out as far as two parts, 14

the problem statement as well as the recommended 15

solution. Pete covered the problem statement pretty 16

well as far as the specified two hours to cover the 17

intro, whereas many trainers have felt as though the 18

time could be spent covering more serious hazards in 19

the workplace, and also that it really does not take 20

for the most part two hours to cover that information. 21

I think in the last discussion, we heard folks 22

43

say they could do it in as little as half hour, and 1

make sure they meet all the objectives that were there. 2

With that problem statement, the recommended 3

solutions have been to the current terminal and 4

enabling objectives should be maintained, however, they 5

should be enhanced. We kind of lay that out at the 6

bottom of the sheet there. 7

It cites a minimum of one hour. I don't know 8

if that is a time frame we have committed to at this 9

point or if that is part of this discussion as far as 10

identifying that. 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I'm not necessarily sure 12

we need to identify a particular time limit, if that's 13

what you are asking, for the intro. I think we can 14

just come up with a recommendation, again, as long as 15

the objectives are covered. It could be covered in an 16

hour or whatever that time is. 17

We could say a minimum of an hour, but it 18

sounds like in some cases it doesn't take that long. 19

As long as we cover the objectives, that would be the 20

goal as opposed to say there is a certain time limit on 21

it. 22

44

MR. ERICKSON: Roger Erickson, employee 1

representative. I believe the time limitation is 2

really secondary here. I concur, we list the 3

objectives, cover those objectives in the requirement, 4

and make that recommendation. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. I appreciate that. 6

I'm looking at the OSHA staff here. I thought Dr. 7

Payne was going to be on the phone with us. Is Damon 8

here? 9

DR. PAYNE: I am on the phone. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Hi, Hank. Good to 11

hear from you. We're having this discussion, Hank. We 12

recommended and talked about this at the last meeting. 13

With these objectives that we have, if that satisfies 14

you, OSHA, what are the next steps for implementing a 15

policy that would address this issue for us? 16

DR. PAYNE: Pete, I'm at a bit of a 17

disadvantage. My understanding is that you and Jim 18

Maddux had a meeting with Chief of Staff, Debbie 19

Berkowitz, about this. I'm not real clear what it was 20

you all discussed and necessarily agreed to. I had a 21

very brief conversation with Jim. I'm not aware of the 22

45

details. 1

He mentioned to me that he was under the 2

impression that the work group was going to go through 3

and prioritize all of the materials that were in the 4

intro to OSHA module. 5

Is my understanding incorrect? 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I was hoping -- Dean? 7

MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie with OSHA. Hank, 8

one of the things we had was an assignment for the work 9

group that we wished to propose for them, on the two 10

hour intro, to take the existing material and maybe 11

pare it down. 12

We have heard from your folks that with 18,000 13

and some trainers across the country, we believe there 14

should be a minimum requirement and material that this 15

will be covered as part of the program. 16

If the Committee and the work group believe 17

there is an opportunity to pare that material down by 18

identifying existing material in the package, giving us 19

suggestions on where we could go with that. We would 20

look to that recommendation. 21

We concur with some of your staff's comments 22

46

that there needs to be a specified amount, a bare 1

minimum. 2

DR. PAYNE: The issue is the requirement to 3

get the card is ten hours of training. We are 4

extremely uncomfortable in saying that the intro to the 5

OSHA module has no time requirement, that it is 6

whatever the trainer thinks he or she needs to cover 7

the material. 8

We are still dealing with a lot of fraud 9

issues in terms of trainers who don't do what they are 10

supposed to do now, and we are concerned about the 11

uncertainty of what a nebulous time requirement would 12

create in terms of a recordkeeping nightmare for the ed 13

centers that would be required to verify the trainers 14

are in fact meeting all the training requirements. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Hank, it sounds like we 16

will go through the materials and make specific 17

suggestions on material, where they can be either 18

replaced or cut down, in terms of exercises; right? 19

MR. CANNON: That was an approach that Bill, 20

who was formerly on the work group, as well as Roger 21

and myself, had discussed that, actually going through 22

47

the module and identifying some of the areas. 1

You have some of the information that's 2

covered in other modules. 3

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Like HAZCOM. 4

MR. CANNON: Yes, like HAZCOM, for instance. 5

That was the approach we were going to take. However, 6

we weren't sure if that would have been accepted. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Hank, it sounds like that 8

is the next exercise for the work group and this 9

Committee, to go through that and offer specific 10

suggestions on how that could be done. 11

MR. CANNON: Also, making sure the six 12

objectives are maintained. 13

DR. PAYNE: Pete, if there is anything we can 14

do to help facilitate that review, for example, if you 15

would like us to make copies of all the material and 16

send it to the respective members, we would be willing 17

to do that to help facilitate the review. 18


Hank. Jerry? 20

MR. RIVERA: As far as time frame, I think our 21

recommendation on solution number two that says minimum 22

48

of one hour, I think that might capture a time frame. 1

I understand when you are conducting the training, 2

there needs to be a time limitation, and by having a 3

minimum, you ensure that an hour is covered and you can 4

allocate the rest of the time to other modules. 5

As long as these objectives are covered, then 6

I think the message is there. I guess we are committed 7

to continue the discussion on what should be pulled in 8

as far as material. 9

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I think we should do that. 10

The building trades' ten hour program, the 11

introduction module for that started out as an hour 12

module. Obviously, as labor representatives, we are 13

very attuned and think it is very important that the 14

members that go to this training understand their 15

rights and what OSHA is, so we are not short changing 16

that. 17

I personally think it could be done adequately 18

within an hour. I think the exercise now is to go 19

through the materials with Hank's help, work closely 20

with you, Hank, our work group and your office. We 21

will just go through the materials and reach agreement 22

49

on what we can do. 1

DR. PAYNE: Pete, in the past, you guys have 2

been very good at helping us once we come up with 3

material in terms of validating the material. I would 4

hope we could work with your guys to do that again once 5

the Committee finishes its work. 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We would be glad to help 7

in that way, Hank. Yes, Matt? 8

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen with NIOSH. I think 9

it is really important to give people objectives and to 10

list specific things you want to have covered as a way 11

to make sure it gets covered. 12

There is one topic that I thought isn't 13

explicitly listed and I think is a fundamental one, and 14

a problem in the construction industry. That is the 15

issue of rights related to employees reporting an 16

injury. There are probably far more workers that would 17

be affected by that, workers contemplating calling 18

OSHA. 19

If you remember at the last meeting, I had 20

brought a copy of a study done by Hester Lipscomb. 21

DR. PAYNE: I'm sorry. I can't hear. 22

50

MR. GILLEN: It was a study done by Hester 1

Lipscomb about reporting of work related injuries among 2

Union carpenters. She found there was considerable 3

evidence of fear of reprisal for reporting injuries, 4

and that 30 percent of the folks that injuries were 5

almost never or rarely reported. 6

Based on that, I wanted to make a motion that 7

we explicitly add the worker rights to report injuries 8

to the recommended modifications language. I think it 9

is a fundamental issue and important to sort of make 10

sure it's covered in the 10 hour. 11

MS. DAVIS: I strongly second that. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Hank, do you have any 13

thoughts on that? 14

DR. PAYNE: I couldn't hear what he was 15

saying. 16

MR. GILLEN: I don't know if the motion is to 17

us or to OSHA. What would it be? 18

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Why don't you read the 19

motion? 20

MR. GILLEN: The motion would be for OSHA to 21

explicitly add worker rights to report injuries to the 22

51

recommended modifications language. In other words, 1

there is an enabling objective about worker rights, and 2

it actually says the following rights, it lists rights. 3

It doesn't really explicitly mention that. It also 4

talks about discrimination but it doesn't explicitly 5

mention that. 6

I feel it's more likely to be discussed if 7

it's explicitly listed in this guidance. 8

` CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: It seems maybe, Matt, it 9

should be a part of the conversation at the work group 10

level, and when they come back, that is what they are 11

recommending, that be incorporated in the intro. I 12

agree, I think that is important, if that's fair 13

enough. 14

DR. PAYNE: I think that would work, Pete. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Any other 16

discussion on the two hour? We can follow up with the 17

work group co-leads and put together timing and trying 18

to get this done. 19

Hank, I don't know when the next meeting would 20

be. I would imagine September/October time frame. I 21

am hopeful we can kind of move forward at the work 22

52

group level and try to get this moving sooner than 1

later. 2

MS. DAVIS: I'd like to see the materials as 3

well. I'm not on the education work group, but I'd 4

like to see them. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sure, Tish. All members 6

will get the materials and are more than welcome to 7

comment. The work group will take the lead on it. 8

Yes, Jerry? 9

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, Jerry Rivera, NECA, 10

employer rep. Maybe we can consider this towards the 11

end of the meeting, but we didn't have work groups 12

during this meeting. As we move forward to the next 13

one, maybe consider a work group to get together on 14

this end, so time allotted for work group work to be 15

performed. 16

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Yes, we kind of forego the 17

work groups this time around just because of the 18

difficulties of trying to do this over the telephone. 19

As the Chairman, the work groups are very important, to 20

keep us on our toes here. I agree we do need to work 21

out a process that the work groups become more active 22

53

or stay active as opposed to become more active. 1

Hank, I hope you are still on the phone. At 2

the last meeting, the Committee recommended that OSHA 3

OTI go back and do an overall assessment of the OSHA 4

outreach training program. This is very important to 5

the construction industry. I think 80 percent of all 6

the students that goes to the OTI outreach programs are 7

out of the construction industry. 8

I think over time we can see things as 9

industry stakeholders where things might be done a 10

little bit better or more efficiently, in our view, 11

kind of go back and take a look-see at the policies and 12

think about this Committee making recommendations. 13

At that time, we had talked about bringing in 14

a third party group to do that kind of an assessment. 15

I recognize now with the budget issues and I haven't 16

really talked any further other than I understand now 17

that within the Department of Labor, there is a group 18

not within OSHA but DOL overall, and I don't know the 19

name of that office that does have some funds to do 20

evaluation and assessments. 21

That is a potential option. I think working 22

54

through our work group and having stakeholders like we 1

have, working with them and kind of developing 2

consensus around the policy is the way for us to 3

proceed. 4

As I recall, last time there was some issues 5

with respect, for example, to the 502 in our industry, 6

where our instructors have to go back every four years 7

for four days, and the intent of that refresher was to 8

really update them on standards. 9

The question becomes without a lot of 10

standards coming out at the end of the pipe, do we 11

really need to pay, the industry need to pay for 12

someone to go four hours, the registration and cost of 13

doing that in addition to the travel and the paid time 14

to do it, does that make sense. 15

It could be something that we all agree there 16

needs to be some kind of refresher but maybe it doesn't 17

have to be four days, it could be two days or there are 18

other options potentially. 19

That is the kind of thing we were looking at 20

or at least I was thinking in terms of an assessment. 21

With that said, from my role as Chair, I'd be glad to 22

55

follow up with DOC staff about the Department of Labor 1

group that could come in and potentially help us, but 2

certainly I think this is an important area, Hank, that 3

we would like to work with you on through our training 4

and outreach work group. 5

DR. PAYNE: Absolutely. Jim and I had a 6

follow up conversation on this. We think probably 7

taking a look at the program in smaller bites as 8

opposed to an once over, try to identify what we think 9

are specific problems like the refresher requirement 10

and go after that. I think it's something that could 11

be done relatively quickly and we could get good 12

recommendations out of the group and then move forward 13

to another issue. 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Sounds good. Any 15

other comments or discussions? Roger? 16

MR. ERICKSON: Mr. Chairman, Roger Erickson, 17

employee rep. While we have Mr. Payne here, and this 18

is kind of along this vein, I wanted a clarification. 19

We have noticed lately that more and more of our 20

employers, boilermaker employers, particularly due to 21

owner demands, are wanting to see the 10 hour card. 22

56

A number of our people -- we know the 1

requirement for the 30 hour class, which is within a 2

six month time frame with the same primary 3

instructor -- is it true that once you get your 10 hour 4

card and move forward and go to the 30, that you have 5

to turn that 10 hour card in? 6

DR. PAYNE: Yes, you do. 7

MR. ERICKSON: I realize a lot of people would 8

think the 30 hour is just an extension, but it's very 9

hard sometimes to get our contractors and even the 10

owners to recognize the 30 hour is, of course, more 11

training, but they still want to see the 10 hour card. 12

DR. PAYNE: Roger, we have a document that I 13

will send up to DOC to share with ACCSH. It's 14

basically a hierarchy of the cards, which shows the 10 15

hour and the 30 hour and the trainer card, et cetera, 16

and those kinds of things. 17

We actually had employers want people with 18

trainer cards to go back and take it to them. We put 19

together this hierarchy of cards that some 20

organizations have been willing to accept to show if 21

you want a 10 hour and somebody had a 30 hour, they 22

57

have exceeded that requirement. 1

I'll send that to DOC and they can share it 2

with the Committee. 3

MR. ERICKSON: I appreciate that. Thank you. 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, Hank. 5

MR. McKENZIE: This is Dean McKenzie with DOC 6

again. There were two other things that we hoped to 7

talk to the work group about to consider prior to our 8

next meeting. One would be for the research and 9

evaluation of the program. We talked about it with 10

some of the evaluation folks here in DOL. One of the 11

first issues we came up with was what are the questions 12

that we want an evaluation to identify. 13

The program means a number of things to 14

different people. When you start to look at that, what 15

are the questions we want to ask for the third party 16

evaluator to look at. We understand Tish is not on the 17

committee or assigned as a work group chair, she would 18

understand what a researcher would need to look into. 19

That would be something that would be beneficial. 20

What are those questions. It sounds simple, 21

but when you get down to what do you go ask 18,000 22

58

trainers or all the ed centers, it becomes a little 1

more cumbersome. 2

The other one was in the discussion on the 3

502, what would a modification look like. Is there 4

something with the frequency of the training given. If 5

it's somebody that does a 30 hour once every five 6

years, perhaps he needs the full refresher. If it's 7

someone that does the 10 and 30 hour every month, 8

perhaps they don't. Some analysis along those lines as 9

well. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I'm going to look at my 11

work group co-leads, is that something we can do. I'll 12

be glad -- all the Committee can help -- we will be 13

glad to frame up some things that we are interested in 14

assessing. 15

MR. McKENZIE: It would be beneficial for a 16

motion to consider in the future. 17

MS. DAVIS: I totally agree. I think crafting 18

the specific evaluation questions that can range from 19

quality of the education to resources allocated to the 20

program. It could be at all different levels. I think 21

articulating those questions and maybe that sets up the 22

59

frame for picking on smaller bits. 1

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. I think that is 2

good. We will work on that. I think we need to come 3

up with some questions and we can start on that sooner 4

than later. Any other discussion on that? 5

[No response.] 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: One last thing I would 7

throw out without muddying the waters, CPWR 8

participated with McGraw-Hill on a study of 9

construction safety and health management. McGraw-Hill 10

did just an amazing job. They collected an incredible 11

amount of data in about a seven day period and had a 12

sample of about 300 contractors in the United States, 13

all sizes, one to ten, all the way up to contractors 14

that had 500 or more employees. 15

All those contractors across the board, number 16

one, said training of supervisors is more important to 17

their safety and health performance than training of 18

workers. A large majority of those contractors, 19

including the large ones, rely on the OSHA 30 for their 20

supervisory training. 21

Of course, I'm just offering this up, the 22

60

distribution of the OSHA outreach program is really a 1

pretty incredible network that we have out there, Dr. 2

Payne, and there is a lot of people doing a lot of good 3

training. 4

In construction on the research side, we hear 5

and we are talking a lot about -- the "safety culture" 6

is the buzz word. We are getting different proposals 7

from different people from areas of the country who are 8

interested in developing supervisory training, 9

leadership training, whatever you want to call it. 10

I was thinking as opposed to developing 11

separate training programs about the possibility of 12

seeing if we could explore how we could develop some 13

training that could be embedded in the OSHA 30 to be 14

included perhaps as an alternative module of OSHA 30 15

that would provide some of that supervisory training. 16

In our industry, as you know, you can come out 17

of the hall as a journeyman one day and then the next 18

day, you're a foreman. You're a foreman because you're 19

a good hand and you put work into place, but you are 20

also given some responsibilities in some way in my mind 21

and aren't prepared, for example, how you would do a 22

61

good tool box talk, what are the resources out there 1

for those kinds of things, and how do you with still 2

good communication take care of -- management kind of 3

training. 4

That might be a little off the wall, but if we 5

could develop something as an industry that we through 6

this Committee could take a look at and figure out, Dr. 7

Payne, how that might be incorporated into the OSHA 30, 8

it seems to me it could one, standardize it, and two, 9

the distribution of that kind of training could be 10

significant. 11

I just throw that out as food for thought and 12

whether that is even an option or what the Committee 13

thinks about that. It's something based on this study 14

and that kind of struck me that might be a possibility. 15

Jerry? 16

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 17

recommend maybe the subgroup invite members of the ET&D 18

Partnership. They currently have a supervisor training 19

that was geared to kind of mirror the 30 hour but for 20

supervisors. It has not been accepted by our Training 21

Branch from OSHA, outreach centers, but it does have a 22

62

curriculum as part of a partnership that OSHA holds 1

with the electrical power transmission and distribution 2

industry, and I think it's a good starting point. 3

They have a set foundation of the training. 4

They are currently conducting the training across the 5

country even though it's not accepted by meeting a 30 6

hour requirement. It is specific to the industry. It 7

does address supervisors directly and it also addresses 8

the change in the culture. It might be something for 9

the subgroup to look into, and Mr. Payne to be a part 10

of as well. 11


discussion on that? 13

[No response.] 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: It is something I think we 15

should through the work group take a look at. 16

MS. DAVIS: I just wanted to support the 17

concept. 18


discussion? 20

[No response.] 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Sarah, please. 22

63

MS. SHORTALL: I have a number of exhibits 1

that I want to make sure get into the record here. 2

First, Exhibit No. 13, a written copy of the 3

presentation yesterday by Graham Brent from NCCCO. 4

Exhibit 14, the proxy submitted by Sarah 5

Coyne. 6

Exhibit 15, the proxy submitted by Laurie 7

Shadrick. 8

Exhibit 16, the proxy submitted by Roger 9

Erickson, and I know he's here, but he's going to be 10

leaving early. 11

Finally, as No. 17, OTI work group 12

chair -- Kevin, are you the chair? 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Co-chair. 14

MS. SHORTALL: Co-Chair recommendations on 15

modifications on the introduction to OSHA Construction 16

Outreach Program for ACCSH's consideration. 17

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, Ms. Sarah. We 18

have the folks from the Directorate of Standards and 19

Guidance so we are going to come back to our discussion 20

on the checklist more toward the end of the day. We 21

are going to move the agenda around a little bit so we 22

64

can get to these other issues. 1

First on the agenda is to talk about 2

occupational exposure to beryllium. I'm not sure, 3

Dean, who is here to do that. We welcome you. David 4

is here. We know David. Come on up, David. 5

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM 6

MR. VALIANTE: Good morning, everyone. Good 7

morning, Committee members here in the room and also 8

Committee members teleconferencing here. 9

Thank you for the opportunity to update the 10

Committee on OSHA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 11

beryllium. 12

Before I start, I'd like to just point out a 13

couple of key people that are working on this 14

rulemaking. Tiffany DeFoe, who is also with Standards 15

and Guidance, and she is the team lead in this 16

rulemaking process. I'd also like to mention Louis 17

Betz, with our Solicitor's Office here at the 18

Department of Labor. She's also another key person, 19

attorney, that is working with us. 20

Also, I want to mention Maureen Ruskin who is 21

our Office Director, who is giving us a lot of 22

65

guidance. She has a lot of experience in rulemaking, 1

and most recently with the GHS, globally harmonized 2

system, update of our hazard communication standard. 3

With that, because of this format, I have 4

table top slides so there is no presentation, but 5

everyone on the Committee has a copy of the slides. 6

People in the audience, I believe there are copies in 7

the back for you to look at. 8

I'm not really sure why we call them "slides." 9

There is no sliding going on the way the old carousel 10

system was set up. For want of a better word, I'll 11

just call them slides. 12

To begin with, we are here to talk about the 13

beryllium rulemaking update. Beryllium is on the 2013 14

OSHA regulatory agenda. That is in your second slide, 15

you can see a copy of the Federal Registry. 16

OSHA has been at work on developing the 17

rulemaking for beryllium. As I mentioned, we have a 18

team that has been working on it for a while now. 19

If we go to the next slide, the third slide, I 20

want to go over some of the rulemaking activities that 21

have occurred throughout this time. Rulemaking, as you 22

66

might expect, is a very complex process. It begins 1

early on with a Request for Information and that 2

information is collected, and it goes through a number 3

of steps. 4

I do want to point out in this particular 5

slide that there is a requirement for a SBREFA Panel. 6

For any regulation, there is a requirement that a panel 7

is put together. This is under the Regulatory 8

Flexibility Act. That really is to determine economic 9

impact on small businesses. The SBREFA Panel was put 10

together. We develop information for their review, for 11

example, a draft beryllium standard. That is reviewed 12

and comments are obtained from this panel. We are 13

required to take into consideration these comments and 14

suggestions. 15

In addition to the SBREFA Panel that was 16

completed in 2008, an unique activity that occurred in 17

this process is that the United Steel Workers, and an 18

industry leader in beryllium manufacturing and 19

processing, Materion, which was formerly called Brush 20

Wellman, they jointly developed a model beryllium 21

standard. That model standard was presented to OSHA in 22

67

2012. We did receive that and have taken that model 1

standard under consideration. 2

Needless to say, development of the proposed 3

standard is continuing. Our next steps, as I 4

mentioned, it is on our regulatory agenda for 2013. We 5

hope to publish the proposed rule at some point. Once 6

that is proposed and put in the Federal Registry, then 7

it is followed by a public comment period and public 8

hearings. 9

If we go to the next slide, because ACCSH is 10

the construction advisory committee, I wanted to talk a 11

little bit about construction and beryllium. Where are 12

the exposures in the construction industry? Well, 13

primarily they are in abrasive blasting, where the 14

beryllium comes from is in primarily coal slag and even 15

other types of slag like copper slag. 16

This is again a primary source of exposure in 17

construction and also in maritime with ship building. 18

The beryllium exposures are elevated really 19

due to the abrasive blasting, and as most everyone 20

knows, very high dust exposure concentrations that are 21

generated during abrasive blasting. 22

68

Even though a coal slag has only very small 1

amounts of beryllium in it, less than .1 percent, 2

because of the high dust levels that are created in 3

abrasive blasting, you can get elevated levels of 4

beryllium in abrasive blasting. 5

Again, in abrasive blasting, the blaster is 6

typically protected from high dust levels for obvious 7

reasons, these are extremely high levels of dust and 8

other materials that may be present in either the 9

blasting material or what they are blasting. They are 10

protected typically in respirators and in protective 11

clothing. 12

If we go to the next slide, I want to talk a 13

little bit about the draft proposed standard that was 14

presented for SBREFA review. As you can see, it was 15

what we call our typical 6(b) standard, other terms 16

that are used, for example, expanded standard, where 17

there are ancillary provisions in the standard, such as 18

regulated areas, medical surveillance, medical removal, 19

typical of standards that you may be more familiar with 20

such as asbestos and lead that have a number of these 21

ancillary provisions. 22

69

You will see in that first section there, the 1

permissible exposure limit, what was considered. There 2

was a range that was considered from the current PEL of 3

two micrograms per cubic meter cubed to .1, down to .1, 4

and numbers in between. 5

Going to the next slide, we also in this 6

process provided the SBREFA Panel with options for 7

regulation of beryllium and beryllium exposure. 8

You can see in the first bullet, there was an 9

option for a PEL only standard, and that would 10

entail -- currently, there is a PEL for beryllium in 11

what we call the "Z Tables," and there is a Z Table for 12

general industry, a Z Table for construction, a Z Table 13

for maritime. 14

The PEL only standard would update the 15

beryllium PEL in the Z Table, and of course, it would 16

be an option as to what level that would be. As we 17

talked about earlier, the range of levels that were 18

considered for the PEL. 19

Under this PEL only standard, there are 20

existing standards that would in effect, depending on 21

the level of the PEL, once the PEL was set, these 22

70

standards would be in effect to protect for that 1

particular level of PEL or permissible exposure limit. 2

For example, ventilation in construction, 3

which includes abrasive blasting, PPE, another 4

construction standard, and respiratory protection, also 5

a construction standard, as well as standards in 6

general industry, et cetera. 7

If we go to the next slide, this continues 8

talking about the beryllium options that were presented 9

in the SBREFA process. Another option was to adopt the 10

DOE regulation. The DOE regulation is for DOE sites 11

that use a lot of beryllium alloy. They have their own 12

regulation. I believe it's 10 CFR 850, Part 850, which 13

covers employees exposed to beryllium, including 14

contractors that are on-site under 851, which is the 15

safety and health program, that includes beryllium 16

requirements under 850. 17

Another option which is limited scope, a 18

limited scope option, which would exempt construction 19

and maritime, and even limited coverage to materials 20

that are -- limited coverage to materials that are over 21

0.1 percent for beryllium. 22

71

An example of what is something that is under 1

0.1 percent would be coal slag, which has trace amounts 2

of beryllium in it at levels less than .1. 3

With that, that is my update. At this point, 4

I can take questions. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, David. Any 6

questions? 7

MR. CANNON: You said the SBREFA Panel 8

completed its process in January 2008. Were there any 9

recommendations that came out of that? 10

MR. VALIANTE: Yes. There were quite a few 11

recommendations. It was a public comment period and 12

OSHA has received -- it is publicly available in the 13

Federal Register, this information, and in the Docket. 14

That is available on -- 15

SPEAKER: Regulations.gov. 16

MR. VALIANTE: Yes, Regulations.gov. I can't 17

give you the number of comments but there are quite a 18

few. 19

MR. CANNON: Any type on construction? 20

MR. VALIANTE: Offhand, there may have been a 21

few. I would say the answer is yes, but I couldn't 22

72

give you a percentage of how many there were. 1

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Any other questions or 2

comments? Chuck? 3

MR. STRIBLING: Chuck Stribling, representing 4

state plans. Any target date for publication of a 5

proposed rule? 6

MR. VALIANTE: Yes, we're moving ahead with 7

developing this draft proposal. I don't have a target 8

date. We are moving forward and hope to get it out at 9

some point. 10


discussion? I'm assuming, David, you don't want any 12

particular action, you are just informing the Committee 13

where OSHA stands right now, you are not asking for 14

ACCSH for anything at this point? 15

MR. VALIANTE: That's correct. We are just 16

here to update the Committee on what we are doing and 17

where we are at in this beryllium rulemaking. 18

MS. SHORTALL: I have a couple of questions 19

for clarification, and that is the proposal for 20

beryllium that went to SBREFA for consideration, did 21

that include application or scope that included 22

73

construction? 1

MR. VALIANTE: Again, it's a matter of public 2

record, the draft that went to SBREFA. Yes, it did. 3

It covered general industry, construction and maritime. 4

MS. SHORTALL: Thank you. 5


discussion? 7

[No response.] 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you very much. Why 9

don't we go ahead and take about a ten minute break 10

here? We are about in the middle of the meeting. We 11

will reconvene at 11:35. Thank you. 12

[Brief recess.] 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Let's call the meeting 14

back to order. We are back on SIP IV. Paul, I guess 15

you will handle that. Just for clarification, Paul, 16

what is the timing on SIP IV? We took some action on 17

some elements yesterday. We will be doing the same 18

thing today. At what point is SIP IV going to be 19

finalized and moving forward? Just for my 20

understanding. 21

MR. BOLON: I expect we will present another 22

74

batch of SIP candidates at the next ACCSH meeting, and 1

that will be a wrap, then we will quickly proposed 2

after that. 3

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All right. 4

MR. BETHANCOURT: Mr. Chairman, do we have a 5

quorum? 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I'm a quorum on my own. 7

[Laughter.] 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Paul, let's turn it over 9

to you to talk about the decompression tables first. 10

SIP IV - ALTERNATIVES TO THE DECOMPRESSION TABLES IN 11

SUBPART S - UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION, CAISSONS, 12

COFFERDAMS AND COMPRESSED AIR 13

MR. BOLON: "SIP" stands for Standards 14

Improvement Project. The Agency has been doing these 15

every three or four years to try to clean up, 16

streamline, bring things up to date throughout its 17

standards. 18

This fourth one is focused mainly on 19

construction things. We published an RFI in December. 20

We had comment until February. We had 25 or 30 21

comments. We are presenting six items here to ACCSH, 22

75

and we did four yesterday and we have two more today, 1

and the first one is on decompression tables, which are 2

in our Subpart on underground construction, and these 3

are the tables you follow if you have a worker that is 4

under more than atmospheric pressure, how you bring 5

them back to keep them from getting the bends, which is 6

what it used to be called. 7

Vernon Preston to my right is on my staff and 8

he's the staff that has been doing the work on revising 9

the decompression tables. Vernon? 10

MR. PRESTON: Again, my name is Vernon 11

Preston. Thank you, Paul, for the introduction. 12

OSHA received comments to the SIP RFI from 13

NIOSH and the Laborers Health Safety Fund of North 14

America and the Building and Construction Trade 15

Department of the AFL-CIO on the update to the 16

decompression tables in Subpart S. 17

Those trades recommended updating to tables 18

that the industry uses and tables that have been 19

approved prior or in the variance process. The 20

Laborers Fund recommended updating to the French tables 21

for lower pressures and tri-mixed tables for higher 22

76

pressures, and also recommended that anything above 1

eight bars of pressure must be approved by the variance 2

process. 3

NIOSH recommended requiring staged 4

decompression, allowing the use of 100 percent oxygen 5

decompression, vary the decompression schedule based on 6

the exposure time of the worker, and allowing for 7

greater pressures in underground construction projects. 8

NIOSH also included studies that showed that 9

the current tables that we have in our OSHA standards 10

are not receptive for workers that are doing the work 11

while they are compressed. There were examples of 12

workers who suffered from decompression illness 13

following the decompression tables that we currently 14

have in our standards. 15

It shows we need to update the tables because 16

workers are put at risk following what we currently 17

have in the standards. 18

OSHA has been thinking about doing this in the 19

past, mainly because it's an extra step for the 20

employers who have to do the work. They have to submit 21

a variance to use a different table than what we 22

77

currently have in our standards. Not only is it a 1

benefit to the employers that have to do the work but 2

also it frees OSHA up as we wouldn't have to review 3

that as part of the variance application. 4

The suggested changes that we have are to 5

remove the current table that we have in the OSHA 6

standards, and we decided to recommend replacing them 7

with a few different tables that were mentioned in the 8

comments we received to the SIP's RFI, and those tables 9

would be the Edel-Kindwall tables, the British 10

decompression tables, the French decompression tables, 11

the German decompression tables, and the Brazilian 12

decompression tables. 13

The idea of including all these different 14

tables was to give employers the option of using the 15

tables they might be more comfortable with. There are 16

studies that have shown generally all these tables are 17

more receptive than what we currently have in our 18

standards. 19

The French and Edel-Kindwall Tables were 20

mentioned in both the NIOSH and Laborers Fund 21

recommendations, and both have been used in variance 22

78

applications for work. The British, German and 1

Brazilian Tables were also mentioned in NIOSH's 2

comments to the SIP's RFI. They were included in an 3

U.K. study from their Health and Safety Executive that 4

compared various decompression tables. 5

There are also other tables, such as U.S. Navy 6

Tables, the Canadian Navy Tables, that have been part 7

of variance applications that have been approved in 8

state plans. We would consider adding those also to 9

the list. 10

There are a few issues that we have with 11

including these tables. One is the availability and 12

whether we would actually be able to add them to our 13

current regulations, if there would be any copyright or 14

any other legal issues that we might run into. We have 15

to do a little bit more research on that. 16

In the NIOSH comments, they recommended 17

updating the working pressure from what we currently 18

have in our standards, which is 50 psi. That is 19

something we might consider, but we want to make sure 20

we are not going to choose an arbitrary number. 21

Generally, when variance applications come in, 22

79

they tell us what pressures they think they will be 1

working at and they will pick a decompression table 2

based on that. 3

If we were going to consider updating the 4

working pressure, we would have to do a little bit more 5

digging before we decided exactly what we would update 6

it to. 7

Also, if we were to increase the working 8

pressure, the tri-mixed tables, which are tables used 9

for decompression, and a blend of various gases to 10

bring the workers back to atmospheric pressure. Those 11

are usually used at greater pressures. We would 12

consider maybe adding those as well if we were to up 13

the working pressure. 14

I guess I'll take any questions at this time. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Any questions or comments? 16

Chuck? 17

MR. STRIBLING: As far as increasing the 18

allowable pressures, it's my understanding a lot of the 19

alternative tables that you are going to incorporate or 20

add into the standard go along with increased pressure 21

work; is that correct? 22

80

MR. PRESTON: Yes. 1

MR. STRIBLING: Through a SIP project, would 2

the Agency be comfortable with increasing the 3

pressures, whatever number you might come up with, when 4

used in conjunction with the tables or would that be 5

seen as rulemaking that wouldn't be good for SIP? 6

MR. BOLON: We will look at it. It's probably 7

beyond the scope of SIP because we would have to -- the 8

context of this, as you know, Chuck, the technology of 9

tunneling has changed a great deal, and now you have 10

workers under much higher pressures than our old 50 11

pound pressure. Changing that is probably beyond the 12

scope. 13

MR. STRIBLING: If it can incorporate in the 14

tables but we still have the existing pressure 15

limitations, employers who would be going beyond that 16

would still need to go through the variance process? 17

MR. PRESTON: Yes, to work at greater 18

pressures, yes. They can then use the tables that we 19

would change, they would no longer have to ask for a 20

variance to use a different set of tables. 21

MR. BOLON: Our understanding is these tables 22

81

are better at 15 below also. 1

MR. STRIBLING: Is it feasible that in a SIP 2

effort, it can be a non-mandatory appendix or something 3

like that if an employer was working at a higher 4

pressure? I'm just throwing that out there. 5

I ask these things because they are going to 6

dig a tunnel in Kentucky for a new bridge that is going 7

to be going from Kentucky to Indiana. It just happens 8

a French firm is doing that tunnel. I'd like to stay 9

away from variances as much as possible. 10


comments? I guess like yesterday, you are looking for 12

action now from this Committee, the decompression 13

tables be included in SIP IV? 14

MR. BOLON: Sure; yes. 15

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Chuck, go ahead. 16

MR. STRIBLING: I agree. I certainly support 17

this effort. I think the standard really does need to 18

be addressed, but if I also heard you right, there are 19

a couple of other things you have to check into, mainly 20

copyrighting and if it is reproducible. I think that 21

is pretty important. 22

82

Is there any way -- if you are going to bring 1

us another round of SIPs at our next meeting, maybe at 2

that time we could hear again, see what we find out? 3

That could have a significant bearing on what the final 4

product might look like from the Agency. 5

MR. BOLON: Sure. 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: That sounds like a good 7

recommendation. Any other questions or discussion? 8

Matt, go ahead. 9

MR. GILLEN: I was just going to say I think 10

it's terrific that OSHA is doing this. It's a great 11

effort. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Who is the next 13

victim? 14

SIP IV - UPDATE THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE 15

MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) 16

MR. BOLON: The last SIP item we are 17

presenting to the Committee today is on updating the 18

references of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 19

Devices, MUTCD. Blake Skogland is on my staff. We 20

recently wrote a compliance directive on highway 21

safety, and he wrote it. He is going to tell you about 22

83

the MUTCD update. 1

MR. SKOGLAND: This came up writing the 2

directive. One of the biggest comments afterwards was 3

why don't you just use the 2009 version. That's a 4

really good question and we are going to try to fix 5

that now. 6

Three sections of the construction standard 7

incorporate Part 6 of the Manual on uniform traffic 8

control devices, which is 200(g)(2), traffic signs and 9

devices; 201(a), flaggers, and 202, barricades, and 10

OSHA wants to update to the most recent version, which 11

is the 2009 version, and then there are two revisions 12

to that as well that we would include that are from May 13

2012. 14

This is always sort of a difficult area 15

because OSHA can't just say we're going to adopt the 16

most recent version. Every time this is updated, we 17

have to go through this process. 18

The Manual is pretty much continually updated 19

by DOT. We feel like now it's been ten years since the 20

last update, so this is a good time, and it really will 21

help out OSHA and employers to know what exactly they 22

84

have to do. 1

Right now we allow compliance with the 2009, 2

and any version that goes beyond the 1988 and 2000 3

versions, which we have incorporated. 4

We have also had some issues having two 5

versions at once incorporated, which will be eliminated 6

now if this goes through, just having one. 7

All of the commentors that commented, there 8

were about five, all were in support of this because in 9

general, most employers right now are either required 10

to or do use the 2009 or they don't use any at all. 11

There are not a lot of employers out there saying I'm 12

going to stick to the 1988, this is going to cause a 13

lot of problems. Actually, I haven't heard any say 14

that at all. 15

If anyone is not familiar with the MUTCD, 16

basically, it's a guidance document that has standards 17

in it. In the past, it was difficult sometimes for 18

OSHA to say exactly what we meant by it because it was 19

written in paragraph form, and didn't lay out exactly 20

what the requirements were. 21

The new version has options, it has guidance, 22

85

and it has standards. It specifically says what is a 1

standard. Those are the parts that OSHA would be 2

adopting as rules under these three standards. 3

Just a couple of the areas that are new that 4

DOT has identified, they apply more now to just -- in 5

the past, it was really just Federal funded roads, now 6

they are making an effort to make this apply to all 7

public roads and even private roads open to private 8

travel, which OSHA in the past has always done, even 9

though it was in their rule, we have always applied it 10

everywhere, anywhere traffic is disrupted. That is not 11

a change for OSHA. 12

With the new signs they require, DOT generally 13

allows old signs to be used until they wear out unless 14

there is something really unsafe about them and they 15

have target dates for compliance with those new signs. 16

They have updated their high visibility safety 17

apparel section, which we already enforce as well under 18

the general duty clause, and they include a lot of new 19

technology which most of the new technology is 20

optional, and it says if you use it, this is how you 21

have to use it. Again, it won't really create any new 22

86

costs unless employers choose to go with the new 1

technology. 2

That's pretty much it. It's not really 3

anything major. Everything that the 2009 version does, 4

OSHA can already enforce and does in some way, even if 5

it's not through this standard, it is through 6

200(g)(1), which is posting signs, or through the 7

general duty clause. 8

If anybody has any questions, I would be happy 9

to take them. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Go ahead, Jerry, and then 11

Don. 12

MR. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, employer rep, NECA. 13

I just want to ask as far as adopting the Manual in 14

general, is that available for on-line viewing for the 15

contractors that are going to be affected by this? 16

MR. SKOGLAND: Yes. 17

MR. RIVERA: The reason why I ask is because 18

we have gone through this challenge before where we 19

reference consensus standards and then there is no 20

access -- 21

MR. SKOGLAND: It's available on the OSHA 22

87

website and it's available on DOT's website under the 1

Federal Highway Administration. 2

One issue that we again can't get around is 3

they update their versions quite often, and they will 4

still call it the 2009, but OSHA is going to be 5

adopting the version from one point in time. OSHA will 6

have the correct version always on its website. DOT 7

always has old versions available. You may have to 8

look for the correct one if that is not their most 9

recent version. 10

MR. RIVERA: I guess my challenge with that is 11

that is good they have it available, that is kind of a 12

positive side of things, but my challenge is how would 13

the end user know whether they are complying with the 14

right version if they all refer to one global one? 15

MR. SKOGLAND: If they go to the OSHA website, 16

it will have the correct version available. 17

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Don? 18

MR. PRATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a 19

quick question. Has there been any document developed 20

for residential construction? We don't get involved in 21

heavy road work and things like that, but we do get 22

88

involved many, many times in having to close a lane or 1

putting in an acceleration or deceleration lane into a 2

new subdivision. 3

Has there been anything prepared that would be 4

a specific document for residential construction that 5

we could give to our members to make sure they are 6

complying with this? 7

MR. SKOGLAND: I don't think OSHA has anything 8

specific on residential construction, but the MUTCD has 9

options, guidance and diagrams for all these 10

situations. The reason a lot of these standards aren't 11

very specific is because it's very hard to come up with 12

an exact traffic control plan that fits everything. 13

For residential construction, there are plenty 14

of applicable situations and diagrams and things 15

available in the document. The answer is no, there is 16

nothing specific to residential but all of the 17

information that anyone would need for any traffic 18

control, large or small, is available in the DOT 19

document. 20

MR. PRATT: What I am really saying is that we 21

have a hard enough time with our members trying to get 22

89

them to read anything, but specifically, this is 1

something that is critical, especially for new 2

construction. 3

If we could have our association, NAHB, work 4

with your department to try to come up with something 5

that would be specific to that industry, I think it 6

would be something that would be very well used in our 7

industry to help keep those people safe. 8

Is that possible? 9

MR. BOLON: Yes, that's possible. Actually, 10

Dean McKenzie and I are going to your Safety Committee, 11

I think, in a few weeks. This could be an item we 12

could take up with you there. 13

MR. PRATT: Okay; good. Maybe we can carry on 14

the discussion there. 15

Also, since there was a change between -- if I 16

may, Mr. Chairman -- between 2000 and 2009, has there 17

been a matrix or some type of a chart made up to show 18

the differences between the two, so that we can inform 19

our members of what the changes were? 20

MR. SKOGLAND: We have some internal documents 21

that we have worked on and also DOT has comparison 22

90

documents between the 2009 and 2003 versions and the 1

2003 version is nearly the same as the 2000 version. 2

It was mainly a cosmetic change. 3

Like I said, as far as standards are 4

concerned, there aren't a lot of new requirements. It 5

is mainly these updates are to inform people of new 6

technology, new ways to do things, and to make it a 7

better, more readable document. 8

As far as any ground breaking changes as in 9

oh, you didn't have to do this before, and now you do, 10

there really aren't a lot of changes. I will look to 11

see what we have, and if DOT has anything specific on 12

that. 13

MR. PRATT: Appreciate that. Thank you. 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. Any other 15

questions or comments? 16


Jeremy, if I can make a comment that I hope would help 18

Don. We work with folks in commercial and residential 19

construction. There really is no differentiation on 20

the requirements, to kind of reiterate what I think I 21

was hearing the folks at OSHA saying. 22

91

One thing that we found and that we urged the 1

folks that we interact with was to contact the actual 2

municipality that you are working with, where you may 3

need to have restrictions, and they are generally 4

speaking very helpful. In fact, they assume the 5

control over their streets. 6

Don, if you want to contact me off line, I'll 7

be happy to share my experiences that I think would 8

help a lot of folks realize it really can be very 9

simple and there are a lot of resources out there. 10

That's just my comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank 11

you. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thanks, Jeremy. Any other 13

questions or discussion? 14

MS. SHORTALL: I'd like to go down a long, 15

long old path and probably only Matt Gillen will 16

remember these two people. Former ACCSH member, Daniel 17

Zarletti, and former ACCSH member, Steve Cloutier, both 18

have been pushing for years for years for OSHA to stay 19

on top of the road traffic safety issues. If they ever 20

read this transcript, it is nice for them to know that 21

some of their work is coming to fruition here with 22

92

ACCSH. 1

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: How many years ago was 2

that, Sarah? 3

MS. SHORTALL: I think it goes back over 15 4

years for Mr. Cloutier and five years now for Mr. 5

Zarletti. 6

MR. GILLEN: That's before my time. 7


discussion? 9

[No response.] 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: It sounds like Jeremy will 11

talk to Don off line and OSHA will work with NAHB for 12

something specific to help them in that industry. 13

I'm assuming you are looking for some kind of 14

action on this, that the Committee recommends this be 15

included in SIP IV? 16

MR. BOLON: Right. 17

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: A motion to that effect? 18

I'm tired of making motions. Let's have someone else 19

make a motion. 20

M O T I O N 21

MR. BETHANCOURT: I'd like to make a motion to 22

93

incorporate that. I think this is a great idea to have 1

that incorporated. 2

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Jeremy, your motion is to 3

include this reference of the Manual of Uniform Traffic 4

Control Devices to the 2000 edition in SIP IV. 5

MR. BETHANCOURT: 2009. 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: What did I say? 7

MR. BETHANCOURT: You said 2000. 8

MR. BETHANCOURT: That is my motion, Mr. 9

Chairman. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: 2009. Do we have a 11

second? 12

MR. PRATT: Mr. Chairman, Don Pratt, second. 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We have a motion and 14

second. Any other discussion on it? 15

[No response.] 16




MR. BETHANCOURT: Jeremy, aye. 20

MS. BARBER: This is Kristi, aye. 21

MS. DAVIS: This is Tish, aye. 22

94


CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Steve, you are kind 2

of fading out a little bit but we got that. Any 3

opposed? 4

[No response.] 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Thank you. I see 6

there are two people signed up for public comment. I 7

would like to remind everyone that if you would like to 8

make a comment, please sign up on the sheet in the back 9

and we will make time at the end of the meeting. 10

MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Chair, at this time, I'd 11

like to enter some exhibits into the record. As 12

Exhibit 18, update on OSHA's Notice of Proposed 13

Rulemaking for Beryllium. As Exhibit 19, OSHA's 14

proposed revisions and updates on OSHA standards 15

covering PPE protection, decompression tables, and 16

underground construction, and the Manual of Uniform 17

Traffic Control Devices. 18

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, Ms. Sarah. We 19

would like to switch back and talk a little bit about 20

procurement, but before we do that, I would like to 21

talk just a minute about our work groups. I think it 22

95

is important, and based on the conversation we had 1

yesterday with David Michaels and OSHA's interest in 2

looking at temporary workers and clearly for 3

construction, temporary workers, is an issue that we 4

need to look at. 5

Leading into the discussion on a procurement 6

document, that was really developed out of our I2P2, 7

our Program Standard Work Group, and that document has 8

now come to the full Committee and we will be working 9

on it as a full Committee. 10

I'd like to suggest perhaps, and I would 11

certainly like the input from the co-leads of the I2P2 12

Work Group, that for now, now that we have the product, 13

the procurement product, at the full Committee level, 14

I'd like to suspend the I2P2 Work Group for the time 15

being. I can't tell that the program standard is going 16

to move any time very quickly out. It looks like it is 17

just stalled. 18

I think for two years we have had a work group 19

that has done excellent work, kind of figuring out how 20

a program standard would work in our multi-employer 21

industry. We brought large employers in here to talk 22

96

to us about the elements of their programs and what 1

they think is good about a potential program standard. 2

We have brought small employers in here to talk about 3

the potential roadblocks or problems they see with the 4

program standard. 5

We can continue to kind of have conversations 6

around that but at this point, after two years of work 7

and not looking like the program standard is going to 8

be seeing the light of day, I think I would propose we 9

suspend the program standard and replace that with a 10

work group dealing with temporary workers in 11

construction. 12

I'm just throwing that open for discussion. I 13

don't know if we would need, Ms. Sarah, to make a 14

formal motion on that. I think that is kind of an 15

internal organizational thing that we could decide on 16

our own. I would just like the Committee's thoughts 17

about that, especially from those co-leads on the 18

Program Work Group. I just throw that open for 19

discussion. 20

Jerry? 21

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, Jerry Rivera, 22

97

employer rep. I support that we create a work group 1

that focuses on that. I think the Assistant Secretary 2

has identified that as a priority, and we see that as a 3

necessity out there in the field for that portion of 4

the workforce. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Appreciate that. 6

Any other discussion or thoughts about that? 7

MS. DAVIS: I support suspending it, and I 8

also support the development of a work group on 9

temporary workers. I want to raise one issue from a 10

surveillance perspective, and that is one of the items 11

on the agenda for consideration in a health and safety 12

program plan that pertains to construction was the 13

issue of site-wide logs. 14

I know NIOSH is sitting at the table and CPWR. 15

In the testimony we heard from many of the large 16

employers, every single one of them I asked if they had 17

site-wide logs, and they do. 18

I really think we need a research and 19

demonstration project evaluating that possibility. I 20

think we need to understand what are the practical 21

issues and barriers, what is really feasible on 22

98

construction sites of various sizes. 1

It's not unrelated to the issue of temporary 2

workers as well. I just want to put that out there 3

because I think it is important, that if at any point 4

this program will move forward, that's likely to be a 5

topic of serious discussion, and I think we need more 6

data and research to back up our position. 7


Tish. I think that's an excellent point, something we 9

should certainly look at. Unless there is any 10

disagreement, I would like to go ahead and take action 11

amongst the Committee that we do that. 12

I have talked to Tom Marrero, who I know is 13

interested, and Tish, I know you are, with 14

Massachusetts being the one state that government is 15

taking action on this issue, I'd like to essentially 16

realign the work groups. 17

As I said earlier, one of the problems of 18

having to meet by telephone now with the budget 19

constraints the Department of Labor has in supporting 20

our Committee and all the other OSHA committees, that 21

we run out of momentum. 22

99

I think the work and the work groups between 1

the meetings are critically important. I think at this 2

point, Ms. Sarah, I'm looking at you. It's clear now 3

based on our discussion earlier, our training and 4

outreach work group has some work to do. I want to be 5

sure we are straight on if we have a work group meeting 6

in the next week or two or month, whatever that time 7

is, how we include the public that's interested. 8

Typically, we have done that, when we have 9

work group meetings, folks that come to the work groups 10

sign up. When you sign up, if a work group is meeting 11

in between meetings, that notification goes out to the 12

people that signed. 13

We didn't have work group meetings, so I want 14

to be clear, as an example of the training and 15

outreach group that wants to meet next week, what do we 16

need to do to be sure the public who is interested are 17

invited and involved at this point? 18

MS. SHORTALL: We certainly could take the 19

sign-in sheet from today and yesterday and use that. 20

OSHA, very wisely, has started a new element on their 21

ACCSH web page, and that is called "New." It's up in 22

100

the upper right-hand corner. That would be an 1

excellent place to announce a teleconference meeting, 2

and to have people interested in participating contact 3

OSHA, get the passcode information for that particular 4

call. 5

The other thing that we try to do is to get 6

people to tell other people. If you know of anyone who 7

also wants to participate, to let them know and just 8

use word of mouth to also build up the number of people 9

on that. 10

We have almost an unlimited number of 11

telephone lines available to us in a telephone 12

conference, but we do want to give an indication to an 13

operator how many we are talking about, so if they 14

could contact OSHA if they're interested in 15

participating. 16

I'm certain whatever information OSHA puts on 17

its web page and sends out to members, it will indicate 18

which person OSHA would like to have people contact. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. As a staff 20

function, so I understand, Kevin and Jerry want to have 21

a training and outreach work group meeting and Roger is 22

101

not here, two weeks from today. They would notify OSHA 1

staff to get that announcement on the website? 2

MS. SHORTALL: To get that announcement on the 3

website and to arrange being able to have that 4

teleconference meeting, who we have to contact there to 5

set it up. 6

MR. CANNON: You may have covered this, but 7

what is the advance notice, two weeks, three weeks? 8

MS. SHORTALL: There is no requirement. 9

Subcommittees and work groups technically are not 10

covered by FACA, but President Obama has indicated, in 11

fact, his first Executive Order when he came into 12

office was to try to push more transparent and open 13

Government, and in response to that, we have been 14

holding -- in fact, I think even before President 15

Obama, we were holding all our work group meetings open 16

to the public. 17

Of course, everyone can participate but when 18

it comes down to voting, the only persons able to vote 19

on forwarding recommendations back to ACCSH would be 20

the members of ACCSH. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All right. Go ahead, 22

102

Tish. 1

MS. DAVIS: I'm just trying to figure out a 2

process by which I know, besides going on the OSHA 3

website every day, when the announcement is posted, so 4

if I'm trying to recruit people to participate in this 5

discussion, I can let them know. 6

MS. SHORTALL: We have been taking all of our 7

sign-in sheets from meetings, and that is collected 8

information that we can send out work group meetings. 9

That would be the first source. The second source is 10

going to OSHA's ACCSH web page, so those persons who 11

weren't attending any meeting, who didn't attend this 12

meeting, would be able to find out about it. 13

As a member of ACCSH, as a person who has 14

participated on these committees, you will be informed 15

via e-mail. 16

MS. DAVIS: I will be informed and then I can 17

let people know. 18

MS. SHORTALL: Yes. 19

MS. DAVIS: Thank you. 20

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Did Jeremy or Steve, 21

someone else have a question? 22

103

MR. BETHANCOURT: My question was very similar 1

to Tish, that was exactly my concern. I wanted to make 2

sure I can schedule myself to be able to be there and 3

also to get people as well. 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All right. It's my 5

understanding that any ACCSH work group that is going 6

to have a meeting, it gets posted and ACCSH members are 7

notified by e-mail. 8

I would like to go ahead, and since I have a 9

few proxies here, that the new work group is going to 10

be established. We can talk further. I would like to 11

ask Tom Marrero and Tish, since we are going to put the 12

I2P2 work group on hold, and Jeremy, who has also 13

indicated interest, as co-leads for the temporary 14

worker work group, if that is okay with you. 15

Jeremy, since you are on the women and 16

diversity work group, you are obviously welcome if you 17

want to continue on, but with our new member, Sarah 18

Coyne, here, she has indicated to me she would be happy 19

to work in any area where she's needed, put 20

Sarah -- either Jeremy, take you off that work group 21

and put you on the temporary worker work group, and 22

104

replace you with Sarah Coyne. 1

MR. BETHANCOURT: I have no objection, however 2

you would like to align it, Mr. Chairman. 3

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. We can talk about 4

the other work groups off line. I'm not sure now with 5

the women and diversity work group, it's been a 6

struggle, but we have now moved forward. OSHA is 7

working on a website dealing with some of the issues 8

that we pointed out that we think are important. 9

I need a feel from the co-leads on whether we 10

need to continue those work groups, modify those 11

somehow. At this point, if we are just providing, as 12

an example, information to OSHA to go on the women and 13

diversity website, we can just do that. To me, it 14

seems continually ongoing. Whether we need a work 15

group to convene and discuss, I'm going to leave that 16

to the group leads, and we can talk about that 17

separately, but I think it is something we have to 18

figure out. 19

Let's move to the procurement document, and 20

this will be the last thing on our formal agenda, and 21

then we will move into the public comment period. 22

105

// 1

DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT FEDERAL AGENCY PROCUREMENT 2

CONSTRUCTION, HEALTH AND SAFETY CHECKLIST 3

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: David Michaels kind of 4

challenged us to take a look at this issue. One of the 5

things we have heard particularly from the large 6

employers is that one of the most important elements 7

they have in their performance is how they select 8

contractors and subcontractors working on their sites. 9

I don't have the latest data, but in 2010, putting 10

about $45 billion worth of construction in place, so 11

the I2P2 work group has gone down the path of 12

developing a procurement checklist for our procurement 13

officers, for contractors, bidding on Federal 14

Government work. 15

They take a stronger look at qualifications 16

with respect to safety and health. We have some Army 17

Corps' folks here, and there are larger contractors 18

that probably do this anyway. 19

I think from our Committee, this was an 20

exercise that we have gone through under I2P2. Once we 21

get to the point that we have an agreed on checklist 22

106

and the back-up document, which is in your packet, I am 1

hoping by the next meeting it will be final, and we are 2

going to work on language. 3

We talked about this document being presented 4

in conjunction with the Presidential Executive Order 5

basically saying that the Federal Government is going 6

to pick it up in terms of occupational safety and 7

health in the construction industry and do a more 8

adequate job in qualifying contractors and considering 9

safety and health. 10

That is where we are at with this document. 11

Tish and Tom, if you want to walk through it, or 12

however you want to handle it as the work group leads, 13

I'll yield to you. For purposes of timing, we are 14

asking some procurement officers to take a look at this 15

to give us a gut check on how viable they think this 16

is. 17

We realize anything you ask procurement folks 18

to do is just another thing on the table of things they 19

have to do, and obviously, it's not going to be 20

something that's going to be easy, and we certainly 21

think before we can go to Dr. Michaels and say okay, 22

107

this is the final document and let's do a Presidential 1

Executive Order and get this out, we need the feedback 2

from the procurement folks that are doing this day in 3

and day out. 4

With that, I just offer this to lead into the 5

discussion and yield to Tom and Tish, whatever you 6

would like to say about it, if anything. 7

MR. MARRERO: Tom Marrero with Tradesmen 8

International, employer rep. With what we have here, 9

I'm not sure which one this is, I think one of the key 10

elements that is missing out of here is reference to 11

possibly an EMR, experience modification rate. I think 12

that's a great indicator of employer safety. I would 13

like to see that added in conjunction with this. 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Go ahead, Kevin. 15

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep. That 16

had been discussed and included in the initial 17

checklist. We felt as though that was not an accurate 18

measure because the fluctuation in EMRs can sometimes 19

be a result of things that are not safety related. I'm 20

no expert in it myself but I understand payroll sizes 21

and what not can impact EMR, and then particularly for 22

108

a small employer, you can have a clean record for the 1

past ten years and you can have just one minor 2

incident, and that can cause your EMR to sky rocket. 3

MR. MARRERO: That is also similar to your 4

OSHA incident rate as well. If you're a small 5

contractor and you have one injury, your incident rate 6

is going to -- 7


Jeremy. I agree with Kevin in that respect, especially 9

because of the downturn in the economy and the EMR is 10

very much influenced by the past and then going 11

forward. It's not a very accurate -- as far as I'm 12

concerned -- way to evaluate an organization's safety 13

record, per se, on its own. I agree with Kevin. 14

MS. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, this is Kristi. I 15

agree with Kevin as well. The EMR is based on your 16

past third year of history for your OSHA 300. You 17

could be a completely different company during the 18

present time. I don't think it's a good idea. 19

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a 20

slightly different spin to it, but since we are 21

discussing the procurement process, I think it's off to 22

109

a great stop. I am just wondering if we can gather 1

some examples of other Federal procurement agencies, 2

just to kind of align to see if we are on the right 3

path, is there anything that we are missing, and most 4

importantly, maybe get the feedback from those groups 5

as to what they are doing and how it is going to relate 6

to them before we move any kind of formal 7

recommendation. 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We're not looking for a 9

formal recommendation today on this. I think we have 10

collected some of those instruments. This has been now 11

developed over a course of many months. We have gone a 12

long way down that road. We will be happy to back up 13

and provide that documentation and what's been reviewed 14

as part of the process. 15

MR. CANNON: I would support what Jerry was 16

saying because I know shortly after this was 17

distributed, the folks at NAVFAC had sent out a copy of 18

what they are using. For consistency purposes, to make 19

sure that what NAVFAC is looking for and what this is 20

looking for kind of aligns better. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: What is the acronym you 22

110

are saying? 1

MR. CANNON: Naval Facilities and Command. 2

SPEAKER: Naval Facilities Engineering 3

Command. 4

MR. CANNON: Yes. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Within the Navy. Do you 6

have that? Is that available? I think we should share 7

those. We have now three or four months to finalize 8

this, I would really like to collect all this 9

information and have a final document, so that at our 10

meeting in the Fall, we can make a formal 11

recommendation and tell Dr. Michaels this is is. 12

MR. RIVERA: I know we are looking at making a 13

recommendation but as far as the rationale and thinking 14

behind development of this product, is this going to be 15

a tool in the process or just a screening process that 16

says hey, if you have it, you're good, if you don't 17

have it, you're out? 18

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: No, this is a tool in the 19

process. There are other considerations. We want 20

safety and health to be more of a consideration than it 21

is. There are obviously going to be other 22

111

considerations on selection of contractors. 1

MS. DAVIS: I want to compliment those of you 2

who have been working on this. I found it very 3

straightforward. I liked the elements that were 4

included. 5

One of the things, because it has come up over 6

and over again, and I know you have looked at some of 7

the other agency documents, it might be useful to have 8

some kind of -- our next consideration is -- instead of 9

reams and reams of documents, some synthesis of that. 10

I know there are a lot of different tools out 11

there. I'm just trying to think of a process by which 12

we kind of look at this consistency or validate use of 13

the items included here by reference to other sources. 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay, I think we need to 15

do that. Yes, Matt? Go ahead, please. 16

MR. GILLEN: Matt Gillen, NIOSH. I wonder if 17

our sister group, FACOSH, some of the folks on that 18

group, if it might be worth touching base with them to 19

see if they have folks that are knowledgeable about 20

this as well. It might help us. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay, I appreciate that. 22

112

I don't know that, so we could look into that. 1

MS. SHORTALL: FACOSH will be meeting in early 2

June. 3

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: For those folks here 4

today, documents were put on the back table. We would 5

welcome any comments to the drafts. We have been very 6

open about this since we started this process and have 7

tried to share it broadly with anyone that has an 8

interest in looking at it, so please. We would like 9

all your comments. 10

MS. SHORTALL: I have a question, this is just 11

technical. He said this additional information will be 12

gathered. Who will be doing that now that the I2P2 13

work group -- 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I will take that 15

responsibility as the Chair. Any other questions or 16

comments? 17

MR. RIVERA: One last comment, I would also 18

like to consider because GSA is so big, that might also 19

be one of the ones. 20

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We have identified a GSA 21

procurement officer who has agreed to review it for us. 22

113

MR. RIVERA: Great. Would they be able to 1

share that? 2

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Yes, sure. We would be 3

happy to do that. Any other questions or comments? 4

MR. CANNON: Question for clarification. You 5

will continue to -- 6

MS. DAVIS: I can't hear. 7

MR. CANNON: Kevin Cannon, employer rep. You 8

will continue to receive feedback on this? 9

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Yes. 10

MR. CANNON: Is there a cutoff point? 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: The cutoff point is we 12

will have to identify when the next meeting is going to 13

be, but the cutoff point is the point we are ready to 14

come back at this next meeting and make a 15

recommendation that we want OSHA to take this document 16

and use it. 17

We can work through the Summer on this hoping 18

that by September 1, this is final, a general 19

guideline. I don't think OSHA can tell us today when 20

the next meeting is going to be, but we can 21

assume -- you can? Then tell us, help us identify a 22

114

deadline. 1

MR. McKENZIE: Dean McKenzie, DOC. We are 2

actually hoping to hold another meeting toward the end 3

of August/early September. It will have to be the same 4

format, we will still be under the same budget 5

constraints. We would like to try to schedule that and 6

we will start working toward that after this meeting. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Working back from 8

that, we could say we would like to have this in the 9

can ready to go by mid-August, so we have three months 10

to try to finalize things. 11

MS. DAVIS: I guess my question is were there 12

any particular areas where you wanted more input? 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: No. We have been so close 14

to this, Tish, I kind of liked it myself, but I 15

understand there are other comments. I wasn't looking 16

for any particular areas. 17

MS. DAVIS: Okay. That's fine. 18

MR. BETHANCOURT: I think this is a great 19

document. I hope it will be used more than other 20

means. Of course, generally speaking, it always seems 21

that safety has taken a back burner to the final budget 22

115

requirement or cost, but I think this is a great 1

document, and I hope it is something that can be 2

utilized to support the good players as opposed to 3

supporting the bad players, which are done more often 4

where this type of document is not utilized. 5


Jeremy. Any other discussion or questions? Sarah? 7

MS. SHORTALL: I'd like to enter into the 8

record two exhibits, the Draft Federal Agency 9

Procurement Construction, Health and Safety Checklist 10

developed by the I2P2 Work Group as Exhibit No. 21. 11

The Draft Federal Agency Procurement Construction, 12

Health and Safety Checklist Score Sheet developed by 13

the I2P2 Work Group. 14

If I could just take a moment for personal 15

privilege, this is the first meeting where it has gone 16

from teleconference into -- all things considered, I 17

think they have done an excellent job of getting this 18

to work. I have a thank you to them. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. 20

MS. DAVIS: I'd like to comment. I've been 21

surprised at how well this has worked from my end, but 22

116

I also need to say it has worked because I know the 1

people, I know the voices, but face to face meetings 2

are an important component. These can be supplements. 3

I think I need to say that. 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you, Tish. 5

MR. BETHANCOURT: I need to agree with Tish. 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I understand that, and we 7

also understand we have to try to do the best we can 8

within the budget constraints, and hopefully that will 9

get better. 10

Now we are at the time for public comment. I 11

think three folks have signed up. We have about 35 12

minutes. Chuck? 13

MR. STRIBLING: I was just going to say while 14

they are coming up, I wanted to make a comment or 15

request. About two or three weeks ago, the Agency 16

issued another variance for chimney construction. I 17

know I've brought this up before and Paul is sitting 18

over there so he can't slap me that far away, maybe it 19

be looked at for a SIP project. 20

Apparently, it looks -- speaking as one of 21

your state regulatory agencies, that is just another 22

117

variance we have to keep up with, whereas if it is 1

something that is printed in the standard, it is much 2

easier for our staff to be aware of instead of hunting 3

out the variance and reading through it, and we have to 4

get the training done to support the variance when they 5

are out in the field. 6

It seems to me that within that industry, that 7

is becoming a pretty common practice. I sort of see it 8

as another option that is out there for employers, not 9

necessarily a requirement. 10

I would respectfully request the Agency maybe 11

review that again to see if there is a way it could be 12

incorporated into a SIP project. 13

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I guess we have another 14

bite of the apple next time. Is that one of the things 15

on the list or no? No. 16

MR. BOLON: We can look at it again. 17

MS. DAVIS: I wanted to also say I know we 18

have an opportunity in these meetings to speak to NIOSH 19

as well as OSHA, and we didn't this time get an update 20

from NIOSH, and one of the recent developments is NIOSH 21

has discontinued funding of their adult blood lead 22

118

surveillance program, which has huge implications for 1

surveillance in the construction industry because 2

construction workers are among the most commonly lead 3

poisoned. 4

I would like to request that NIOSH speak to 5

this issue in their update at the next meeting. 6

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay, Tish. Thank you. 7

Chuck, it sounds like your suggestion is OSHA will take 8

another look at the chimney. Sounds good. 9

PUBLIC COMMENTS 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We have 30 minutes left. 11

We have three. Brad was on and crossed his name out. 12

I will have to ask you to limit it to about ten minutes 13

so we can adjourn at 1:00. 14

LaTonya James-Rouse, American Staffing 15

Association. 16

MS. JAMES-ROUSE: My name is LaTonya 17

James-Rouse. I am the Assistant General Counsel for 18

the American Staffing Association, which I believe Dr. 19

Michaels mentioned yesterday when he brought up the 20

possibility of forming the working group regarding 21

temporary employees that you guys mentioned a few 22

119

minutes ago. I just have a very brief comment. 1

I just wanted to say on behalf of the American 2

Staffing Association that we have developed a very good 3

working relationship with and have recently met with 4

OSHA to further the interests and to protect temporary 5

employees. 6

To that end, we support additional efforts, 7

including the establishment of the work group that 8

technically you guys just approved, to further enhance 9

and protect the temporary employee welfare. 10

That is all I wanted to say. 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. We appreciate that 12

very much. Questions or comments? 13

One issue that came up yesterday, your view on 14

the responsibility for safety and health training, is 15

that something your agency takes on itself or is that 16

something you view as an employer's responsibility once 17

they are referred out? 18

MS. JAMES-ROUSE: ASA thinks there is a shared 19

responsibility between the staffing firm and the 20

clients where the temporary employees are being 21

assigned. We do have information available to our 22

120

staffing firms about best practices for employee 1

safety, but according to OSHA standards, there seems 2

like there is a joint requirement there. It could be a 3

little bit clearer on the responsibilities of each 4

party. 5

The primary responsibility is for the staffing 6

firm, but there is some give and take between the two. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All right. Don? 8

MR. PRATT: I would just like to make a 9

statement that in our company we have used several 10

temporary staffing people, especially in positions like 11

laborers, carpenters, masons, things like that. It 12

would be very helpful if they came to our job sites at 13

least having the 10 hour OSHA training. You might want 14

to think about how you can go about doing that, and try 15

to get them that training before they show up on our 16

job sites. 17


comments? Jerry? 19

MS. RIVERA: Jerry Rivera, employer rep, NECA. 20

Just an observation. It is very important, the 21

hosting contractor responsibility there, and as we move 22

121

forward with the work group, I want to thank LaTonya 1

for stepping up to work up with the subgroup or with 2

ACCSH in general. I think it's a step in the right 3

direction. 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I appreciate that. 5

LaTonya, you are signed in. When our work group meets, 6

you will be getting those notifications and we would 7

like you involved at that level. 8

MS. JAMES-ROUSE: Thank you. 9

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. Lisa? 10

MS. LONDON: Hello. My name is Lisa London. 11

I work for the University of Texas at Arlington. We 12

serve OSHA as an OSHA Training Institute Education 13

Center. I also serve as the chair of the Executive 14

Committee for the OSHA Training Institute Education 15

Center Directors across the country. There are 28 16

education centers across the country, with 40 17

organizations involved. 18

I would just like to add a few comments and 19

really let the Committee know that we as the OSHA 20

Training Institute Education Centers are here to be 21

supportive, particularly of the efforts of the Training 22

122

Education Work Group. 1

I did want to let you know about some of the 2

efforts where the things we are doing might be of 3

assistance to you, and where perhaps we could have 4

coordinated efforts in terms of looking at ways to 5

ensure the continued quality and usefulness of the 6

outreach training program. 7

At the OSHA Training Institute Education 8

Center Directors' meeting, which we held this past 9

week, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, in Baltimore, we do 10

also have work groups. We call them "project teams." 11

They are made up of education center directors. 12

We have a project team that is currently 13

assessing the goals, objectives, and test strategies 14

for all of the outreach training program courses that 15

we offer. The standards course, which serves, of 16

course, as an introduction to standards, but also the 17

prerequisite course for the trainer, the outreach 18

trainer courses. 19

We are looking at the standards courses, the 20

trainer courses, and the update courses, and just 21

evaluating the goals, the objectives, and test 22

123

strategies. 1

Perhaps in working with the work group, we can 2

be involved in some further assessment. I do concur 3

that if we are going to assess the program as a whole, 4

including the 10 hour and 30 hour components, but also 5

the trainer components, that understanding what 6

specific outcomes we would like to get out of that, the 7

questions, I think that's a great direction, and if we 8

can be of assistance, we certainly would like to be. 9

On that note, we do have another project team, 10

actually two separate project teams, doing some pilot 11

studies, some research, on the efficacy of the trainer 12

courses. 13

We have Kirkpatrick Level III evaluations 14

going on, which was at the request of OSHA, to enhance 15

our evaluation, going beyond the simple post-course 16

evaluation, but actually setting up a follow-up 17

evaluation after the course, asking about specific 18

outcomes, and then re-surveying six months later, 19

asking about specific outcomes. 20

Those two pilot research projects are being 21

led by -- one is West Virginia University and the other 22

124

is by Rutgers University. Each of those pilot studies 1

has four to six other OSHA Training Institute Education 2

Centers involved in piloting and collecting data. 3

I'd like to let this Committee know that 4

certainly we serve as a resource to Federal OSHA, and 5

we would love to coordinate our efforts to serve as a 6

resource to this group as well. 7

The final thing I will mention just as a point 8

of clarification, the update courses, the OSHA training 9

outreach update courses, 502 and 503, are currently 10

scheduled at an 18 hour minimum contact. That must be 11

done over 2.5 days, the duration of that course. 12

Again, that is something that the project team 13

is looking at, those goals and objectives, and ensuring 14

that what we are covering in those courses is relevant 15

and certainly to update on standards, which we know is 16

a very slow and lengthy process, and maybe doesn't need 17

the critical update. 18

We also update trainers on training 19

techniques, best practices in safety and health and 20

hazard recognition, new technologies, and all the rest 21

of what may have happened in the four years since they 22

125

became a trainer. 1

There are other things besides standards that 2

we do update in those courses, but again, very 3

supportive of the efforts to look at the entire package 4

of outreach training programs from the trainer side and 5

from the worker side, and making sure we are both on a 6

good path, supporting employees, employers, and of 7

course, the objectives of Federal OSHA as well. 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: That's great. We 9

appreciate that. I'm sure the training work group will 10

take advantage of the offer and work with you. 11

The studies that WVU and Rutgers are doing, 12

how is that funded? Is that something they are doing 13

on their own? 14

MS. LONDON: First I'll mention that the OSHA 15

Training Institute Education Centers, we operate under 16

a non-financial cooperative agreement with OSHA. Just 17

in case anyone is not aware, this is a non-funded 18

effort. 19

We very much appreciate the cooperative nature 20

of our agreement, and that is why we charge a fee for 21

the training. What you will find with the education 22

126

centers is that we are very much committed to this 1

mission, to the mission of training, outreach training, 2

and just us wanting to do an excellent job. 3

We have volunteered our resources to evaluate 4

the programs. It helps us provide a better quality to 5

our clients, which are the employers and employees out 6

there that participate in this training. These are 7

non-funded pilot research studies. 8

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: That is great. Any 9


MS. DAVIS: First of all, thank you. Sounds 11

like a terrific resource for our education work group. 12

I hope you will participate. 13

Two issues that were raised today, one had to 14

do with the 2 and 10 hour course, introduction to OSHA, 15

and the other had to do with incorporating some 16

supervisory training skills in the OSHA 30. Are those 17

topics that have been addressed by your group? 18

MS. LONDON: I would say they are topics that 19

have been discussed and probably we have had many of 20

the same discussions about those topics. Certainly, we 21

have talked about the 2 hour intro to OSHA, the 22

127

materials that have been developed, the applicability 1

of those materials, all of the same conversations that 2

I sense you have had, we have had in our Education 3

Center Directors' meetings, and we have had at our 4

individual centers among our constituents. 5

Definitely we have been traveling along the 6

same paths, and certainly are committed just like 7

yourselves to making sure we are providing the training 8

that is most effective in keeping workers safe. 9

That is why I think some coordinated efforts 10

for OSHA to hear what is most relevant from multiple 11

points, if those opinions concur, then I think that 12

unified voice is helpful. If they don't, then it 13

enriches the dialogue. 14

We were talking earlier about expiration dates 15

of cards. There is a variety of opinions on this topic 16

as well. All these things, the more dialogue we can 17

have and find the places we agree and where we concur 18

and where we can advance the program, I think those are 19

things we would be very much interested in. 20

With regard to supervisory skills, in a 30 21

hour course, I'll reiterate some language that has 22

128

really been drilled to me from OSHA, and that is that 1

the 10 and 30 hour courses are hazard recognition 2

courses, so 30 hours of hazard recognition is more than 3

10 hours of hazard recognition, is that more 4

appropriate for a supervisor level? Sure, it is. 5

As an educational professional, I would like 6

to see supervisors have more than 30 hours of hazard 7

recognition, and now I'm stating more my opinion than 8

that of any collective group, but I believe the 9

products that the OSHA Training Institute Education 10

Centers offer, the standards courses, the introduction 11

to the standards courses, and then the more subpart 12

specific standards courses, I would prefer to see 13

supervisors have that kind of training, knowledge and 14

resources on the job site, but that's just a general 15

statement of the more they know, the better supervisor 16

they are. 17

In terms of management leadership, kinds of 18

skills, absolutely, we definitely recognize that it's 19

one thing to know the standards or to know hazard 20

recognition, it's another thing to be able to lead that 21

on a job site, and that takes some leadership and some 22

129

management skills, and it is certainly that we as an 1

education center group are concerned about. I'm not 2

certain that the 30 hour course is the right place for 3

it, but maybe it is. 4

We are definitely interested in that dialogue. 5

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We will continue that 6

discussion. Yes, please, Chuck. 7

MR. STRIBLING: The studies you mentioned, is 8

there any target date for completion, any publication 9

of the results? 10

MS. LONDON: We have just been updated on 11

this, like I mentioned. I believe both of them have 12

been a very narrow pilot. I've seen some extremely 13

preliminary data, along the magnitude of say 60 14

responses to the survey. 15

We are definitely in the early stages. Like 16

this group, we meet twice per year as a collective body 17

and then we have work group meetings in between. Our 18

next meeting will be in November. I would expect we 19

would have some additional data to be presented to us 20

at that time. 21

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Okay. Any other questions 22

130

or comments? 1

[No response.] 2

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Lisa, thank you. This is 3

great. We would very much -- I think Tish said 4

it -- like for you to be involved in our work group. 5

It seems like we are looking at the same issues. To 6

work together, I think, would be a terrific 7

opportunity. 8

MS. LONDON: We would be very pleased to work 9

with you. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Do you have a business 11

card? 12

MS. LONDON: I do; absolutely. I have lots of 13

them. 14

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Would you give it to the 15

Reporter over there for the record. Also, LaTonya, if 16

you have a business card, would you give it to the 17

Reporter? 18

MS. JAMES-ROUSE: I did. 19

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: All right. Last person 20

signed up is Francisco Trujillo for Miller & Long. 21

MR. TRUJILLO: My name is Frank Trujillo, I'm 22

131

with Miller & Long Concrete Construction. We do a lot 1

of concrete work here around the D.C. metropolitan 2

area. I am speaking in regard to the Federal Agency 3

procurement discussion. 4

There are a few concerns that we had when 5

looking at this, and speaking with some fellow 6

colleagues of mine in the safety industry and some 7

general contractors in the area. 8

The first was discussed a little bit earlier 9

about the data being examined by the qualification for 10

the job, such as accident rates and EMRs. I can't 11

remember the other one. 12

The bottom line is especially with accident 13

rates, they are easily manipulated in what is turned in 14

for project bids and such, and it is not hard for 15

contractors to manipulate that data to look better or 16

look worse. 17

The other one was OSHA citations, I just 18

remembered. Some of the contractors were concerned 19

about maybe OSHA wars going on, contractors calling 20

OSHA in on their competitors so they could worsen their 21

safety records, maybe have a better shot at getting 22

132

some of this work. 1

The market is improving. Federal dollars are 2

driving a lot of the industry. 3

Another point of concern was the JHAs, and 4

some of the scoring and how the data is examined is 5

kind of subjective. There was mention about the 6

quality of the JHAs. Beauty is in the eye of the 7

beholder. I can look at some JHAs and pick them apart 8

or I could say I love them. It just depends on what 9

you are trying to do to the person who wrote them. 10

It's a little concerning, some of the language in here 11

about how things are scored. 12

Inspection documentation was another concern. 13

There is some language in here about turning in past 14

inspection reports to document you have done 15

inspections. There is a lot of concern about that 16

being used against the people who submit it, possibly 17

be used as a foundation for a willful violation if 18

there was an enforcement event in the future. 19

I would tend to anticipate that you would only 20

receive gleaming inspection reports on every 21

application. I doubt you would find any if at all on 22

133

anything other than maybe somebody wasn't wearing their 1

safety glasses. 2

We thought that was a bit of a concern, but 3

the biggest concern we had was the requirement for OSHA 4

10 and 30 hour training. The OSHA 10 and 30 hour 5

training, we have recently had a lot of input on this 6

in the State of Maryland. We are looking at 7

establishing an OSHA 10 or 30 hour requirement in all 8

state funded projects. 9

Miller & Long in this area employs about 2,000 10

employees, just in the D.C. metropolitan area, D.C., 11

Maryland and Virginia. We are one of the largest 12

employers in the area. It is hard work, it's labor 13

intensive work. It's carpentry, moving heavy materials 14

from here to there and it's concrete work. 15

Consequently, we have a higher turnover than a 16

lot of companies have, and it is a huge burden on an 17

employer like us to have us training a lot of employees 18

in an OSHA 10 hour who likely we won't retain, and 19

continuing that cycle in trying to staff these projects 20

with employees being 10 hour trained is just a huge 21

cost burden to us to comply. 22

134

As a safety professional, I always have to say 1

the OSHA 30 hour for a foreman or superintendent is 2

valuable, and we have adopted that wholeheartedly and 3

we are pretty much 100 percent compliant in that area. 4

It does hold value from a managerial standpoint. 5

As far as an individual worker having an OSHA 6

10 hour card making him safer, I think it is up for 7

debate. I would think it's up for debate and a lot of 8

my colleagues feel the same. 9

Another thing to consider is it's on the OSHA 10

website that OSHA 10 or 30 hour training in no way 11

meets any OSHA required training anywhere in the CFR. 12

It is not a substitute for any required training 13

anywhere in the OSHA Manual in 1910 and 1926, it is not 14

its purpose, it is not what it does. 15

You can go on the website. It says it 16

outright. It is just an additional safety training 17

offered to employees. I think it has some value in 18

certain areas, but as a means of making employees safer 19

or making a project safer, I don't think having every 20

single employee on the project comply with OSHA 10 hour 21

achieves any of those goals, injury reduction. I think 22

135

30 hours for supervisors could. 1

The Maryland legislation, when they were 2

looking at passing the 10 hour requirement for every 3

employee on their state funded projects really relied 4

on the 2 hour and showed the OSHA section as the 5

primary reason they wanted to get this thing out to 6

people, to all the employers on their work sites, so 7

that employers knew their rights. 8

If that is the function of having a 10 hour 9

required for every employee, I guess that is an 10

argument. For making the project safe or making the 11

employees safer, again, I think that is up for debate. 12

That is our primary concern, the 10 and 30 13

hour training. The rest of it, I think it can be 14

tweaked. I think there are a lot of good things done 15

here and I understand the function of it, but that's 16

the concern I wanted to voice. 17

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: We appreciate that. Will 18

you provide those comments to us as a part of the work 19

group, and any issues that you have? That kind of 20

input would be helpful as we fine tune this thing. 21

MR. TRUJILLO: Sure. 22

136

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: On the OSHA 30 and 10, I 1

am going to say I probably disagree with you, but that 2

is neither here nor there. The checklist is that you 3

provided the training, it's not requiring you provide 4

the training. The checklist is yes or no, you either 5

do the 10 or 30 or you do not. 6

We are not saying if you don't provide the 10 7

or 30 hour training, you're not going to get Federal 8

Government contracts. 9

MR. TRUJILLO: It scores you lower on the 10

scale. 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: That's right. Jerry? 12

MR. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, Jerry Rivera, 13

employer rep. I'd like to thank the gentleman for 14

stepping up and sharing his insight. It definitely 15

shows there might be some areas of consideration moving 16

forward with the procurement document. It was kind of 17

interesting to hear your thoughts on the JHAs, the job 18

site inspections, and definitely, the 10 hour. It's a 19

valid point. It's a tool, but by means is it a 20

substitute for safety and health training moving 21

forward. 22

137

It should bring us back to the perspective to 1

see the value of some of these things that are 2

included. 3

I would like to ask, besides working with the 4

work group, which I highly encourage, if you are 5

willing to share some of your procurement processes, 6

what they look like. It doesn't have to be on formal 7

company letterhead, an idea. 8

We want to make sure we compliment the 9

industry moving forward, not hurt it. I know it's hard 10

to bid work, and by no way are we saying that employers 11

that are unsafe should get work. We just want to make 12

sure everybody has a fair opportunity moving forward. 13

I think Miller & Long on behalf of the local 14

market is something we should consider, companies like 15

yourself. 16

MR. TRUJILLO: Sure. For a company like us 17

that spends close to seven figures a year on safety 18

training and education, apprenticeship programs, things 19

like that, if there was some metric that you wanted to 20

come up with for evaluating our training besides the 10 21

hour, we really do try to provide a lot of training to 22

138

our people, but ten hours for every employee is 1

something that is very difficult for us. 2

I know it is not required, but it is a metric 3

of evaluation which can put you down more. 4

MR. RIVERA: My point is you might be doing 5

more, and I can see that. There are definitely people 6

who do less. The guys who are doing the right thing 7

are probably doing more from job site orientation to 8

job site specific training to tool box and so forth, 9

combination of all of it, probably more than that. 10

MR. TRUJILLO: Sure. 11

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Frank, if there is some 12

category that we could add that would kind of get at 13

the kind of training that is provided and not the 14

reliance on OSHA 30 or 10. 15

MR. TRUJILLO: Maybe something in there that 16

says the equivalent or greater. 17

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I guess that is kind of 18

what I was asking for in terms of comments, if there 19

are things we can do to tweak it over the next couple 20

of months, that is the kind of input we would like to 21

have. 22

139

MR. TRUJILLO: We would be glad to. 1

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you. Any other 2


[No response.] 4

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Thank you very much. 5

Thank you for being here. 6

MR. TRUJILLO: Thank you. 7

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Ms. Sarah, I think we are 8

close to wrapping up. Do you have anything? 9

MS. SHORTALL: No. 10

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: Dean? 11

MR. McKENZIE: No. 12

CHAIRMAN STAFFORD: I want to thank again all 13

the ACCSH members and the folks that have participated 14

and the public. I think we have had a good discussion 15

over the last couple of days. 16

If there are no other questions or comments, 17

I'd like to adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. 18

(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the meeting was 19

adjourned.) 20

21

* * * * * 22

23

140

E X H I B I T S 1

2

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 3

13 Written copy of the presentation by 4

Graham Brent, NCCCO 63 5

14 Proxy submitted by Sarah Coyne 63 6

15 Proxy submitted by Laurie Shadrick 63 7

16 Proxy submitted by Roger Erickson 63 8

17 OTI Work Group Co-Chair 9

recommendations on modifications on 10

the introduction to OSHA Construction 11

Outreach Program for ACCSH's 12

consideration 63 13

18 Update on OSHA's Notice of Proposed 14

Rulemaking for Beryllium 94 15

19 OSHA's proposed revisions and updates 16

on OSHA standards covering PPE 17

protection, decompression tables, and 18

underground construction 94 19

20

21

22

141

E X H I B I T S 1

2

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 3

20 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 4

Devices --- 5

21 Draft Federal Agency Procurement 6

Construction, Health and Safety 7

Checklist developed by the I2P2 Work 8

Group 115 9

22 Draft Federal Agency Procurement 10

Construction, Health and Safety 11

Checklist Score Sheet developed by 12

the I2P2 Work Group 115 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND …May 24, 2013 · Damon Bonneau, ACCSH Coordinator, Office of Construction Services, Directorate of Construction COMMITTEE COUNSEL:

Documents